1 Monday, 1 February 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 May we have the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
11 Belinda Pidwell, and case manager Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Tatjana Savic appearing for
14 Stanisic Defence this morning.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning Your Honour. On behalf
16 Zupljanin Defence, Dragan Krgovic and Katarina Danicic.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, just before the witness comes in, can
19 we inquire, because we're now reorganising the witnesses, whether we will
20 be sitting the week after Easter. We heard - I suppose you have to call
21 it a rumour - that we were not. But we assume that because the week is
22 coming off now, we will sitting after Easter. Is that right?
23 JUDGE HALL
25 MS. KORNER: Right.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HALL
3 the stand.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE HALL
6 you're still on your oath.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honours, good morning. We changed the order.
9 I will start first with cross-examination.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 WITNESS: VITOMIR ZEPINIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zepinic.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. We were introduced a few days ago in the OTP's office, and we had
17 a chance to speak for about five or ten minutes, but let me introduce
18 myself for the transcript. Officially my name is Dragan Krgovic, I'm a
19 member of the Defence team of Stojan Zupljanin, and I will be asking you
20 some questions about your statement.
21 I will be showing you some documents during the
22 cross-examination, documents that we haven't had the chance seeing. I
23 don't believe that you have seen them recently. So I have compiled a set
24 of documents, some of which are there Serbian only. And on the screen,
25 documents are exhibited page by page, but to facilitate communication
1 when I say to you, document so-and-so, you will be able to see it on
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to
4 pass this to the witness.
5 MS. KORNER: Do I understand there are some documents without a
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes. They're on e-court.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we weren't notified that this was
9 happening. And it really doesn't help, because all we get is, then, such
10 part as is shown on the screen in e-court, which may be only part of the
11 document, and we don't know what the context is. I do think if this is
12 the situation, we ought to be told about this in advance.
13 JUDGE HALL
14 be a recurring problem.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, because we -- four days ago we
16 sent the list and indicated some of these documents still pending or
17 translation. The main problem is the summary of this witness, because we
18 received a summary with two paragraph doesn't mention my client at all.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 concern raised by Ms. Korner.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I will continue in B/C/S.
22 When we received the summary and when we started preparing for
23 this witness and nothing was pointing to any connection between him and
24 my client. It wasn't mentioned in the summary or in the proofing notes
25 what this witness would be testifying about.
1 As a result, the Defence, only after the examination-in-chief and
2 the mention of some documents, indicated that this evidence would also
3 deal with the role of my client. So that all documents that we sent off
4 for translation were not all translated. Some are either on the 65 ter
5 list or were submitted in the latest disclosures in the past month or so.
6 So we didn't have time to translate them all. But what we were
7 able to do, we have done.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 the immediate problem?
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I will show the
11 document -- show the witness the documents, and have him read out the
12 letterhead, and then I will only deal with some paragraphs from the
13 documents. These are mostly documents that were sent to this witness by
14 Mr. Zupljanin, and they relate to the events in which this witness was
15 also involved.
16 The witness is familiar with the documents, and the events that I
17 will be mentioning are events in which he took part.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And the reason why we agreed for me
20 to start with the cross-examination is for the OTP to have some time to
21 verify the context of these documents.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 MS. KORNER: Not really, Your Honour. I don't quite follow that.
24 Our list of documents that was going to be shown to Mr. Zepinic,
25 Dr. Zepinic, was sent to the Defence, whatever it was, the day before he
1 started testifying. They notified us of the documents they were going to
2 be using as he started testifying, so it cannot be right to say that
3 because of -- it's only because of his examination-in-chief that they
4 have decided to use these documents.
5 My only concern is - I don't want to stop them - is that unless
6 we have these documents in -- in translation, as I said, we can't see the
8 Presumably on the list they've indicated which of the ones they
9 haven't got a translation for, and have they sent -- well, I see
10 Mr. Smith says not. And equally I would like the whole document.
11 You see, Your Honours, the e-mail we got says we are still
12 awaiting for translation for most of these documents.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all these documents
14 have been in e-court for at least five days. It was indicated that they
15 would be used in this case, and once we received the OTP's list of
16 documents and when the examination-in-chief in started, we submitted this
18 It wasn't my intention to cross-examine this witness at all. If
19 the Prosecutor and the examination-in-chief through the documents and
20 through the questions put to this witness hadn't dealt with some issues,
21 I wouldn't be examining Mr. Zepinic at all.
22 But, due to this decision by the OTP and due to the lack of
23 information in the proofing notes and the summary, we have put in this
24 situation. So this wasn't expected. So I only want to go through some
25 documents briefly with the witness. I will read out the -- the headings
1 and have him look at the signatures and the like. And, actually, these
2 are documents that we received from the OTP.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
5 JUDGE HALL
6 notwithstanding your representation that the Prosecution would have time
7 to look at these documents, how long in fact are they? And this is all
8 in the context of the commitment, undertaking, whatever the proper word
9 is, that this witness is to be released today.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has a good
12 memory, so these documents are just a prop for me to remind him of some
13 events and details thereof. The documents are a few pages long, but I
14 don't want to go through all of them, just the heading or the signature
15 or possibly a paragraph or two from each in order to ask the witness
16 whether he remembers the events or the information related to them.
17 That's all.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 the practical problem, as Ms. Korner has highlighted, is that once they
20 would have seen the full document, there may be a context which they
21 would wish properly to be able to address. And given the time
22 constraints that we are under today, is -- would the Prosecution be in a
23 position to deal with any possible concerns that they may have, once they
24 would have had the advantage of seeing the entire document to which,
25 admittedly, you say you're only putting the signature and the caption to
1 the witness.
2 That's the practical problem.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can proceed
4 differently. I can ask the witness about some events, whether he knows
5 about them, and then, without using the documents, go on in a different
7 It was only my intention to help the witness remember some
8 things, but 90 per cent of the documents were sent to the witness anyway
9 originally. And these are the documents that were disclosed to us by the
10 OTP, and they are certainly in their possession. These are not our
11 documents. They are all documents received from the OTP. They bear the
12 signature of my client, and the witness was a participant to those
13 events. I believe it is all a simple matter. We shouldn't waste more
14 time on such procedural issues.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 I suggest that we begin, and see where we get. And we proceed document
17 by document.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Zepinic, I apologise for this --
20 A. Thank you for saying that I had a good memory.
21 Q. Mr. Zepinic, you are the right person to clarify some things
22 concerning the Special Police and some other police units.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see on e-court document
24 2D02-0848. I apologise. The last four figures are 0878.
25 Q. You can find it under tab 1, sir, the very first document.
1 When you spoke about the Special Police and other police
2 detachments, you said that in some CSBs of some municipalities there were
3 such units, units that were called special units, but probably you meant
4 manoeuvre units that could be found in any CSB and the members of which
5 were also in SJBs.
6 A. Yes. We called them manoeuvre units or special units, and every
9 They were manned mostly by younger and well-trained police
10 officers, and in the police stations, they were members of the manoeuvre
11 or special units. And our MUP special unit was also a manoeuvre unit.
12 So whichever way you choose to call them, the manoeuvre or special unit
13 in the CSB
14 with the approval of the ministry. That is us.
15 Q. And the document in front of you shows the total strength of the
16 reserve forces, and it includes the manoeuvre unit; is that correct? You
17 can see that it is dated the 21st of December 1989, and it is signed by
18 Slobodan Djuric, head of unit -- head of section, who was in charge of
19 these things at the time.
20 A. I don't know if it was Djuric, Slobodan. I can't answer that
21 question. Obviously he was, but, as I said, in any CSB there was a
22 certain unit that dealt with issues concerning the reserve forces,
23 including the manoeuvre or special unit, that would be established
24 according to need.
25 Q. And this document speaks about that, doesn't it?
1 A. Yes, it does. It shows a number of the members of the reserve
2 forces of -- by CSB
3 manoeuvre special unit that could be activated in case of need.
4 Q. And here in line one where it reads "number of police stations;"
5 then to the right we can read "manoeuvre unit;" and in the extreme right,
6 "total strength."
7 A. Yes. For example, there were 13 police stations in the
8 Banja Luka municipality. They were SJBs or traffic police stations. And
9 out of the total personnel, amounting to 825 in the SJBs in Banja Luka,
10 170 were members as -- manoeuvre units in the Banja Luka region.
11 Q. And this manoeuvre unit has nothing to do with the special unit
12 that was in Sarajevo, commanded by Dragan Nikic?
13 A. Yes, it had. Because they were connected through equipment and
14 for training purposes and in case of need. The manoeuvre unit that would
15 be deployed in the area of Banja Luka would act in co-operation with the
16 one from Sarajevo if, according to our estimate, the local manoeuvre unit
17 were unable to deal with the situation, then we would also deploy our own
18 manoeuvre unit.
19 Q. But I thought with regard to the establishment of units that they
20 were different.
21 A. No, no. But in case of need, the special unit of the MUP could
22 intervene in the Banja Luka area and, according to need, use part or all
23 of the manoeuvre structures that were present in the area.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zepinic.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to mark
1 this document for identification.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Tell us, Mr. Krgovic, who issued the documents
3 and --
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The document was issued by the SUP
5 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo. And it is signed
6 by Slobodan Djuric, head of section. And it speaks about the very issue
7 I -- that Mr. Zupljanin is concerned with, namely, the manning or the
8 composition of the manoeuvre units.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, this document appears to be issued
10 on the 21st of February, 1989, which was well in advance of the armed
12 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Exactly, in advance of the appointment of the
16 So my question would be does this also reflect the situation
17 after April 1992?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understood the
19 witness, and that's why I asked him because he was in the MUP, about the
20 -- how the manoeuvre unit was established and how the system functioned.
21 Q. Mr. Zepinic, can you confirm that at the time while you were at
22 MUP the principle reflected in this document was respected?
23 A. As far as I know, once we came to power we didn't changed the
24 strength of the manoeuvre units or the reserve forces, but in agreement
25 with the chiefs of police stations in the field, we launched some
1 operational activities concerning staff, which -- to the effect that
2 manoeuvre units be better equipped with staff. But we didn't change the
3 strength of the -- the manoeuvre unit or the active police forces, or,
4 indeed, the reserve forces.
5 Q. You didn't change the organisational structure either. It was
6 the same as shown in this document. Isn't that right?
7 A. Yes, it is right.
8 JUDGE HALL
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D37, marked for identification,
11 Your Honours.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Zepinic, I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that in 1991
14 war broke out Croatia, and that as a result of war operations, the
15 situation, the security situation changed dramatically in the territory
16 covered by the CSB
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. As a result of that, the MUP, which is your institution, and
19 other relevant political and state organs, started receiving reports
20 about the situation becoming more aggravated in the border area with
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. As a result, you felt a need to strengthen the police force and
24 to undertake certain measures. There were requests from CSB to deal with
25 the issue.
1 A. Not only the personnel issues. In other terms, we were not able
2 to deal with the problems that spilled over from Croatia, once the war
3 broke out in Croatia.
4 Q. The MUP, on its own, and when I say the MUP, I mean the Ministry
5 of Interior in Sarajevo, was not able to deal with the issues itself,
6 because the circumstances were not depending on the MUP.
7 A. It was not within our purview to deal with the security and other
8 political issues that could be felt in the regions of Banja Luka, Bihac,
9 Western Herzegovina, Slovenia and Semberija at the moment when war broke
10 out in Croatia. So not only MUP, but other bodies of power were involved
11 in all that, including the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
13 document 2D02085 -- 85.
14 Q. In your binder, Mr. Zepinic, the document is under tab 2.
15 This document was issued by the CSB. It is a letter which was
16 sent on the 27th of August, 1991, and we see the list of addressees.
17 Let's start with the bottom address, the Deputy Minister, that
18 was you; the minister; to the executive council of the SRBH Assembly; to
19 the SRBH Assembly; to the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and to
20 Mrs. Biljana Plavsic.
21 Can you confirm this?
22 A. Yes. You forgot the deputy prime minister, Mr. Simovic.
23 Q. Yes, I had forgotten him.
24 Could you please turn to page 2 of this document. And will you
25 see that the signatory of the document is Stojan Zupljanin. Am I right?
1 A. Yes, you are.
2 Q. First of all, let me ask you whether you remember having received
3 this document.
4 A. I can't tell you whether I received the document or not. But
5 given the fact that it was addressed to me, I'm sure that I received it.
6 And if you have questions about the document --
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. -- and the answers provided by Mr. Zupljanin in his letter, on
9 several occasions at the meetings of the government and the Presidency,
10 we requested the enlargement of the personnel of the active strength of
11 the police, as well as additional materiel and technical equipment for
12 public security stations. Unfortunately, we did not receive the green
13 light either from the Presidency or the government for various reasons
14 which are beyond the scope of interest of this Trial Chamber.
15 Q. You are familiar with the issues, and you are familiar with the
16 context of this letter?
17 A. Yes, I am familiar with all that. It was very present in all
18 CSBs, not only in Banja Luka --
19 Q. And in this letter, in its first paragraph, due to the critical
20 and dramatic war circumstances around the border - and this is something
21 I already asked you about - Stojan Zupljanin requests some things.
22 A. Yes. As the minister we agree with that, and as you can see
23 Mr. Zupljanin says in the letter that the personnel had undergone the
24 required medical checkups in the centre for health protection in our
25 ministry. So as far as the ministry was concerned, there was no problem.
1 The only problem was who was going to pay for all that. Let's not embark
2 on political issues and talk about the required number of police
3 officers. It says here that Mr. Zepinic [as interpreted] requested the
4 increase in the strength of the police force, and this bothered everybody
5 else because everybody thought that if we increased the number of our
6 personnel we would do something else and not what we put forth as the
7 reason for the request.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can this document
9 please be marked for identification.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I'm sorry to say, this is altogether
11 completely blurred to me. You have the benefit of being able to
12 understand what the letter says, but I not. And according to the
13 witness's testimony, it's -- it's completely obscure to me what this
14 letter is about and what the numbers are that are referred to in the
16 So I don't know if could you be more helpful.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I'll try and be
19 Q. Mr. Zepinic, in this document I have provided its summary, but it
20 wasn't enough.
21 Mr. Zupljanin requests an increase in the number of personnel in
22 the centres due to the war circumstances in Croatia. And on the last
23 page he refers to the number of personnel that had to be employed. He
24 says that they had undergone medical checkups, that the ministry had
25 approved all that, but those men still hadn't been appointed, and he
1 requests assistance.
2 Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, before you decide whether to mark it
5 for identification or not, could I have a query.
6 Mr. Krgovic said these documents came from us. This one doesn't
7 have an ERN anywhere to be seen, so I'd like to know where it comes from.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is from the batch
9 of exculpating material, number 68. I don't know whether I received it
10 from the government of Republika Srpska, from the centre for cooperation
11 The Hague Tribunal. I'm sure that I saw some of the documents in
12 question. Just a moment. I'm going check in any case. Because I have a
13 set of documents that I received from the centre for cooperation. I
14 believe I have it, and I will double-check during the break, and I will
15 inform the Prosecutor about the provenance.
16 But for the time being, can this document please be marked for
18 JUDGE HALL
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D38, marked for identification,
20 Your Honours.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Zepinic, you certainly received quite a number of similar
23 reports which described the situation, the problems, the war in the
24 territory which was within the authority of the CSB Banja Luka.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Those reports spoke about explosions, paramilitary units, and the
2 incidents in the territory of the centre. Am I right?
3 A. Yes, you are.
4 Q. You certainly received regular reports which were submitted
5 either quarterly, annually, or every six months, as needed.
6 A. Every CSB
7 work and the security situation in the territory. And they also had a
8 duty, and it was common practice of every police station and CSB to also
9 assess the situation regularly and send dispatches to the ministry about
10 any incidents as soon as possible.
11 Q. As a result of the need that arose, you, in agreement with other
12 relevant factors, in order to calm the situation down and to check what
13 happened, at one point you went to visit the territory of the centre as a
14 member of a commission.
15 A. I wouldn't agree with you that I went only once. I travelled
16 frequently and visited several areas, either on my own, with my
17 associates, with other government members. And every time I went to an
18 area, I spoke to the relevant personnel in order to try and resolve the
19 situation. As soon as I received reports from the field, the ministry
20 informed the government and the presidents about the deterioration of the
21 security situation and requested further instructions and assistance from
22 the other bodies who might have been of assistance in dealing with any
23 conflict situation.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
1 Q. Which, Mr. Zepinic, is number 7 in your binder.
2 Mr. Zepinic, this is a document issued by the Presidency of the
3 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which speaks about various
4 visits to municipalities of Banja Luka, Bosanska Gradiska,
5 Bosanski Dubica, and Bosanski Novi and information about the security
6 situation in those municipalities. Am I right?
7 A. Yes, you are.
8 Q. On page 1, you can see that -- let's wait for the document to
9 appear on e-court before I put my question to you.
10 Nikola Koljevic, a member of the Presidency, visited the
11 municipalities in question, and on behalf of Ministry of the Interior,
12 under paragraph 2, you will see that Vitomir Zepinic, the Deputy Minister
13 of the interior; Avdo Hebib, the Assistant Minister were members of that
14 delegation and that there was also Miro Radovic and Djordje Jancevski.
15 You see this in the document, don't you?
16 A. Yes. Miro Radovic was the assistant chief of state security, and
17 Djordje Jancevski was the chief of administration.
18 Q. And they were there.
19 A. Yes, together with Dr. Koljevic on behalf of the Presidency we
20 toured the ground in order to verify the situation in the territory of
21 the Banja Luka region.
22 Q. And further on it says that there were talks with the leadership
23 of Banja Luka municipality with the participation of the Banja Luka
24 corps, the chief of security of Banja Luka, and the chief of security
25 stationed in Banja Luka, and that you also visited refugees in various
2 A. Yes, we visited a group of refugees who were accommodated, as far
3 as -- if memory serves me properly, in two schools. They had fled
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please make
6 pauses between questions and answers and try not to overlap. Thank you.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] The interpreters, once
8 again, are asking you to pause between questions and answers, both for
9 you and the witness. So please observe a small pause.
10 THE WITNESS: Right, Your Honour.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: I do my best, Your Honour.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zepinic, further on reference is made to the
13 topics discussed at the meeting. And the first one is the security
14 situation in the municipalities of Bosanski Dubica, Bosanska Gradiska,
15 and Bosanski Novi. Am I right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Further on in page 2 in the third paragraph from the bottom it
18 says that unique assessment on the part of all the participants in the
19 talks was that the situation in the municipalities bordering on the
20 Republic of Croatia from Derventa to Bosanska Kostajnica had all the
21 characteristics of aggravating circumstances. Do you agree?
22 A. Of course, I agree because we had a war on our door-step.
23 Q. Further on, there's certain observations made by the bodies of
24 the interior. And in the next paragraph, or the three following
25 paragraphs, 5, 6, and 7, a reference is made to the increased presence of
1 members of the MUP Croatia in the areas bordering on Bosnia, that there
2 are -- the control measures were stepped up. And finally in the last
3 paragraph reference is made to the entrance of MUP specials from Croatia
4 into Bosanski Novi, as well as the appearance of individuals and smaller
5 groups of members of MUP Croatia in the territory of the SRBH in uniform.
6 Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes. There were such occasions. You have to bear in mind that
8 members of the MUP of Croatia, or a lot of them from the territory of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did arrive and attended several meetings with
10 Mr. Gojko Susak [as interpreted] who was the minister of the interior of
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Mr. Boljkovac.
13 A. And I pointed to the problems that those men who arrived for
14 visits arrived uniforms with no arms and that that caused additional
15 security problems in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that
16 that represented a problem that the Ministry of Croatia should bear in
17 mind, because any presence of men in uniform from Croatia or from any
18 other state for that matter was an additional cause of the aggravation of
19 the security situation and the increase of tensions in the territory of
20 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
21 Q. I will not go through the rest of the document which speaks about
22 a series of incidents in that area.
23 Please go on to page 4 of this document, where it says that:
24 "With regard to the overall situation in the area of the CSB, the
25 local forces cannot cope with the current conditions with regard to the
1 manpower at their disposal or their equipment."
2 Do you agree?
3 A. Yes, fully. And that's why we requested from the cabinet and the
4 Presidency to approve strengthening the MUP and approve additional
5 equipment. But they -- we never received that approval. I don't want to
6 go into the reasons for that. But we tried, through cooperation with the
7 MUPs of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the federal MUP, which still
8 was in existence at the time, as well as the General Staff, to integrate
9 the overall security system to prevent the escalation of the crisis in
11 Q. And my last question about this document, on page 5, we can read
12 that it was observed that the CSB
13 Bosanski Novi, Bosanska Gradiska, and Bosanski Dubica, as far as their
14 personnel strength and materiel equipment allows, did all within their
15 power to stop the negative trends, but the efficiency was limited due to
16 their modest number -- strength of personnel and modest technical
17 abilities, which was partly made up for by mutual assistance.
18 Can -- as you confirmed, is that true?
19 A. Well, I was present at the Presidency session when this was
20 discussed, and they -- where they said that -- criticism was uttered of
21 the cabinet of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because they failed to respond to the
22 situation in the area.
23 Q. I seem to have read too fast for the interpreters.
24 So I read out that the deployment of the organs of the republic,
25 except for the MUP, hardly -- hardly took place at all. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to mark
3 this document for identification.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, first of all, I missed the date of
5 this document. Secondly, I fail to see the relevance of this -- this
6 document as you have explained, or as the witness has explained, seems to
7 though that the security situation in Banja Luka, among other places, was
8 being destabilized as a consequence of the imminent threats of war in
9 Croatia and so that the chiefs of the CSBs in the regions affected by
10 this were asking for reinforcements, and they didn't get it.
11 This is the second document that you are showing to the witness
12 this morning which seems to -- to -- tentative to document this. But
13 what exactly is the point that you wish the Court to draw from this? I
14 mean, after all, it is not surprising that when a war is building up,
15 then inevitably the security situations in the surrounding areas is also
17 So if this is all that you want to show, then I fail to see the
18 relevance. But I may have missed the point, and so please be helpful to
19 the Court and try explain what it is that you want to show with this
21 And finally, thirdly, the document seems to be not immediately
22 overseeable in the sense that it is a document that goes on for five or
23 six pages or even more, I don't know. So the context may be difficult
24 for the Chamber and, indeed, for the Prosecution to understand also.
25 Can you clarify on these three points.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to draw an
2 analogy through this witness, namely that the situation in the Banja Luka
3 region at the time when the witness was Deputy Minister of the interior
4 was disastrous with interethnic conflict that later escalated into war.
5 And that explosions, arson, et cetera, were a consequence of those
6 events, rather than a planned and systematic action incited by the SDS
7 as the OTP alleged, or by other organs that were controlled by the
8 Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 Likewise, that, in that context, concrete action was taken which
10 I will show based on the following document. A joint action was launched
11 by this witness and my client to the effect that up until 1992 all ethnic
12 groups are treated equally and that the problems in the MUP and in the
14 witness participated, together with my client, in trying to prevent that
15 from happening.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: And, Mr. Krgovic, how does this speak to your
17 case? What -- what significance does this have to the defence of your
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It is relevant, like the Prosecutor
20 says, to know the wider context of the behaviour of the defendant in that
21 period and his participation in the joint criminal enterprise from late
22 1991 to 1992. That is the period about which this witness is about to
23 speak some more. And the concrete actions that we will get to, I would
24 -- I wanted to show what the real situation was and which activities were
25 taken, arrests, and the behaviour of the centre in the relevant period.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: How long is the document?
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document has six
4 pages, but this is the last or maybe the last-but-one that is not
5 translated. And I will no longer use untranslated documents.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D39, marked for identification,
8 Your Honours.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Zepinic, as a result of all these events in the Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the Banja Luka region, paramilitary
12 formations arrived and armed groups that had come from Croatia and became
13 a serious security problem.
14 A. Or, from Bosnia-Herzegovina, went to the combat theatre in -- in
15 Croatia and then returned. Yes, correct.
16 Q. And the CSB
17 detail, and you were acquainted with the problems in the region. Right?
18 A. Yes. Although I would have liked him to give me more details
19 about the security situation in that region.
20 Q. And, as a result of the problems with the paramilitary formation,
21 you went to Banja Luka, and together with Stojan Zupljanin and some
22 others, took some steps to arrest that paramilitary formation and have
23 them tried; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: These were Croatian paramilitaries; is that
1 correct? And what were they prosecuted for?
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, these were Serb
3 paramilitary formations. I'm about to show a document now.
4 Could we see document 2D0645 on e-court. I apologise, the number
5 is 695. This document is translated.
6 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
7 MR. KRGOVIC: 695, yes.
8 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] There is no translation.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: I have it.
10 [Interpretation] The English translation is marked 2D02-0943 for
11 some reason.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I ask that if -- this has
13 obviously been uploaded later because we didn't get a copy when he
14 printed these out, but if translations are uploaded later we can be
15 notified so that we can actually print them out ourselves.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to
17 place this on the ELMO. This is the English translation for the sake of
18 the Chamber and the Prosecutor.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
20 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honours, it is
21 in e-court, but it wasn't in e-court when we were given the original
22 list. So presumably it is a late translation. So I'm asking that we be
23 notified if you upload something in e-court later.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The translation was received very
25 recently. But if we have it in e-court, then we don't need it on the
1 ELMO. Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Zepinic, this document can be found under tab 8 in your
3 binder. It's meant to inform you, and it's addressed to you, about the
4 conduct of armed groups in the area of the CSB.
5 Do you remember receiving this document?
6 A. I cannot remember this particular document. But I remember
7 receiving various documents and reports that came in about the worsening
8 of the security situation in the Banja Luka region.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document into
11 JUDGE HALL
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender it because
13 we have an English translation.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 witness, what's -- what's the connection -- how is it relevant?
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it speaks about the
17 behaviour of paramilitary formations in the region covered by the CSB of
18 Banja Luka, and the witness knows the context -- context of this document
19 and its content, that's what I asked him.
20 Q. Isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. KORNER: Do we have the report which is allegedly enclosed?
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, that is the
24 following document.
25 So could we now show Exhibit 2D030381 to the witness. And this
1 document is translated.
2 Q. You can you find it under tab 10 in your binder, sir.
3 This is a report on the criminal and other unlawful activities of
4 Veljko Milinkovic and other members of paramilitary formations from the
5 area of Prnjavor. Correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It is dated December 2nd, 1991, and please look at the last page.
8 It is signed by Stojan Zupljanin.
9 MS. KORNER: Yes, but it cannot be the report which is enclosed
10 with the last letter, which is dated September. I appreciate this report
11 I know about. I'm just asking about the September report which is
12 allegedly enclosed with the letter.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I received this from
14 the Prosecutor in the sequence I'm showing them now. So one document
15 follows another.
16 I didn't change the order of the documents.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, the document, the first
18 document that was shown to Dr. Zepinic was a letter of the 30th of
19 September, enclosing a report, apparently, or whatever the date it was.
20 So it -- 23rd of September. Which is not one of our documents, because
21 it has no ERN number. The document that is now being shown, this report
22 in December is certainly a document from us, but it is not -- it cannot
23 be the document enclosed with the letter dated the 23rd of September.
24 That's my query.
25 So that's what I asked. Where is the report that goes with that
1 letter? Which, the letter does not come from our collection.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 were about to put up would have been the other part of the -- what you
4 were seeking to exhibit, in other words, the letter and its accompanying
5 document. But clearly this cannot be the report, as Ms. Korner has said.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, my
7 mistake. The problem is that I do have the report dated September 30th,
8 but it is not translated. But its content is similar to the content of
9 this one, so -- but can I show the report dated September 30th. I
10 apologise once more for making this mistake.
11 I wanted to avoid using untranslated documents and instead
12 focused on translated documents in order to speed up things.
13 Could we please see --
14 JUDGE HALL
15 that the other -- the untranslated document is in substance the same as
16 the one that is now up.
17 Could we -- having regard to the fact that you now appreciate
18 that that wasn't translated, if you wish to deal with the present
19 document, the December document, then, phrase your question accordingly.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it is more than that. These are not
21 documents that we have. It is one of the concerns that I have, that
22 documents are being produced which we have never seen, and the OTP
23 cleared out the CSB
24 provenance of these document; secondly, that if a letter is put in
25 saying, Here's a report, we get the report that that goes with it. That
1 has not been uploaded into e-court.
2 So, therefore, I object to the production of the -- and certainly
4 JUDGE HALL
6 MS. KORNER: No. But I want to make it clear that part documents
7 like this, if is a document is to be put in, the full document must go
8 in. Otherwise, it is misleading in the extreme.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER: Yes.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Didn't the forwarding letter of 23 September 1991
13 have the ERN number 2D02/0943?
14 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
15 JUDGE HALL
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Ms. Korner, please.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Never mind.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Krgovic, your microphone is on. Could you
20 please switch it off.
21 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Our numbers have a
22 particular stamp.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a storm in a
24 teacup. Much ado about nothing. These documents were downloaded quite a
25 long time ago, we received from the Republika Srpska or rather from the
1 centre for cooperation with the Tribunal.
2 I will do an additional checkup to make sure that all -- the
3 Prosecutor already has all the documents and that all of them are ERN
4 numbers or at least the Prosecution number. We requested all these
5 documents from the commission for cooperation with the Tribunal in
6 Banja Luka, based on the Prosecutor's documents. Until this is resolved,
7 I'm going to ask for all the documents to be marked for identification,
8 and then I will submit the relevant number of the documents to the
10 However, at the end of the day, I just wanted to make things
11 easier for the witness. I can put questions to him even without
12 documents, but I will have an objection from the Prosecutor, like with
13 the last witness. That's why I decided to use documents, and that was
14 the whole essence of me using the documents in the first place, or opting
15 for the documents.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I have no objection -- can I make this
17 absolutely clear, I have no objection to the documents being used
18 hopefully with translations, provided the full document is given to us.
19 That's all, at the moment, my objection relates to.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, whatever we had we
21 submitted to the Prosecutor, and that is the point. And the only problem
22 is the fact that the translations are missing, as far as can I see it.
23 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, I'm sorry to waste time like this.
24 But Mr. Krgovic has just waived the report which he says was attached to
25 the letter, but we haven't got it because it has not been uploaded into
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just check the
3 number of this 30 September report.
4 Just a moment. Please bear with me.
6 I apologise, Your Honours, 2D020705 is the correct number of the
8 Your Honours, this is the 30 September report. I'm not going to
9 be using it with the witness, because I have just decided to avoid using
10 any documents in the further course of cross-examination just to avoid
11 wasting the Trial Chamber's time and provoking the Prosecutor to object.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Zepinic, because of the problem with translation --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL
18 not-yet-ruled-upon application to mark for identification the
19 September letter, we rule that it should not be so marked.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Zepinic, let's speed things along. I'm sure that you know
22 that when you arrived that certain measures were taken and that that
23 group headed by Veljko Milinkovic and members of the Serb paramilitary
24 formations were apprehended, disarmed, and then, in cooperation with the
25 military and investigative organs, they were brought in and incarcerated.
1 Is that right?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. That was an operation under your command or coordinated by you,
4 to say the least.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Together with Stojan Zupljanin?
7 A. Correct.
8 [In English] Can I say something more about this particular event
9 because it is quite interesting to explain.
10 It was decision by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to
11 take action against paramilitary formations and the paramilicia that we
12 had in Bosnian Krajina.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Serb military formations that had arrived
14 from where exactly, and when?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Those were Serb military para
16 formations from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a group headed by Mr. Milinkovic.
17 If my memory serves me well there were some 60 of them who crossed the
18 border of Croatia and participated in war there, and then returned to the
19 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and their presence was detrimental for
20 the security situation in Banja Luka. Mr. Zupljanin and his associates
21 informed us regularly about all that, and I, in turn, informed about that
22 the government and the Presidency.
23 The Presidency appointed Mr. Simovic as the vice-president of the
24 government for internal affairs and myself were appointed to hold a
25 meeting with General Uzelac which took place at his command. Mr. Simovic
1 was not present, and I asked from General Uzelac, given my view that the
2 police in Banja Luka was unable to arrest that group, that was well armed
3 and had a lot of experience from the -- previous theatres of war, I
4 requested them to give me his consent for the military police to give us
5 support in arresting Milinkovic and his group. This was, indeed, done.
6 And that was done by the manoeuvre unit of the Banja Luka security
7 services centre with my full consent and with my coordination, and so
8 Mr. Milinkovic and his group - and can you see it in the document - on
9 15th of November, was remanded in custody in keeping with the law.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, if I understand you correctly, we are
11 speaking of a group of Bosnian Serb paramilitaries who came from
12 somewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina in November 1991, crossed the boarder
13 from Bosnia into Croatia and took part in the armed conflict there on the
14 Serb side, I suppose, against the Croatians. And then returned to
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina and billeted themselves in Banja Luka where they
16 created problems.
17 Is that correctly understood?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we did not understand each
20 [In English] We are talking about --
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is exactly why it is important to be clear
22 about these matters. Otherwise, the Chamber will have no use --
23 [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 THE WITNESS: We are talking -- yes, all right.
25 Your Honour, we are talking about paramilitary Serbs -- Serbs
1 from Bosnia being involved in war in Croatia, coming back from Croatia
2 into Bosnia, because they, you know, citizens of Bosnia. They live
3 there. Fully equipped with military equipment, you know, weapons or
4 something like that. Making security and other, I would say, functioning
5 including --
6 [Interpretation] And let me just note that, Mr. Milinkovic forced
7 the president of the municipality in Prnjavor to leave his office, to
8 take his clothes off and remain only in his shorts, and leave the office.
9 I apologise to the ladies.
10 That was the kind of criminal behaviour that my service could not
11 tolerate irrespective of any support that they may have received from
12 anybody, either from Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's why I asked
13 the government and the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina to allow me to
14 activate the manoeuvre unit in Banja Luka, in order to arrest that
15 criminal group, and that was, indeed, done. The operation was headed by
16 Mr. Zupljanin, coordinated by myself. We carried out professional part
17 or our involvement, and that action was carried out in a fully
18 professional manner.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. And this was, indeed, my
20 understanding of your testimony a while ago.
21 But what exactly did this group do, other than forcing gentleman
22 to strip his clothes in his office? How did they pose a threat to the
23 security in Banja Luka?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that group was well
25 armed. They had returned from Croatia. That group ill-treated all the
1 citizens. That group disarmed police members at certain check-points.
2 That group threatened the population with arms and in all sorts of other
3 ways. During the investigation we obtained information that they had
4 also been involved in financial crimes and the resale of arms stolen in
5 Croatia, in Kosovo, and then also the resale of stolen fuel that was then
6 sold in the territory of Banja Luka. So the only -- it was not just that
7 they had weapons and threatened the population and they decided to shoot
8 those weapons at any occasion, but that group was also involved in other
9 criminal activities in the general territory of the former Yugoslavia,
10 and not only in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the territory
11 of the municipality of Banja Luka.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Zepinic, it sounds to me as if this
13 group of paramilitaries were terrorising the population in Banja Luka in
14 general. So it wasn't only directed against Croatians or Muslims; it was
15 just a general nuisance to everyone that lived in Banja Luka area. Is
16 that correct?
17 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, Mr. Krgovic, if this is correctly understood,
19 then how is this relevant to the defence of your client?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you look at the
21 documents, you will see that they were a general security threat.
22 However, most of their activities and actions were targeted Muslim and
23 Croatian populations. That's why I wanted to show the Trial Chamber a
24 report dated 5 December 1991 which speaks about the individual cases,
25 such as the case of physical or bodily harm inflicted on Cemal Najib [as
1 interpreted] who was a Muslim, and that total number of such incidents
2 given the fact that they were an ethnically uniform formation, composed
3 of only one ethnicity, and the fact that they were active, how did that
4 influence interethnic relationship and fear among the Muslims. And all
5 that is contained in this report that I was going to show to the witness
6 and as my next document.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't object to that.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 MS. KORNER: My I assist?
10 It may not be clear at the moment, but the Milinkovic and the
11 Wolves of Vujic figure quite strongly in the events that tool place in
12 the indictment period.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: That may well be, Ms. Korner, but my problem is
14 that this contradicts what the witness has just told us.
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Well, that's a matter for
16 the Defence, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 continue to consider this.
19 We return in 20 minutes.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 10.30 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, there are two matters before the
24 usher enters the witness inside the courtroom.
25 First, I would like the record to show that 1D91, which was MFI'd
1 document, it was MFI
2 revision has been received, and it has been uploaded in the e-court.
3 And, therefore, I would move the Trial Chamber to admit the 1D91,
4 as -- as exhibit.
5 That's one thing.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: 1D91 according to my notes was a letter from
8 Stanisic dated 17th July, 1993.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: To all CSB
11 crimes, et cetera, on a daily basis.
12 We MFI
13 date. Is that correct?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: That -- that is correct, Your Honour. There was a
15 verification of translation, because the translation was not
16 corresponding to the original document. And now this -- this document
17 with the revised translation has been received and uploaded in e-court,
18 and, therefore, I'm asking the Trial Chamber now to admit the document
20 JUDGE HALL
21 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the second matter.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: And the second matter is, Your Honours, we
24 requested four hours of cross for this witness. Now, I'm mindful of the
25 -- of the Trial Chamber's decision to -- to have the extended sitting for
1 one session in the afternoon. Therefore, I don't know how long
2 Mr. Krgovic will have of his cross-examination, but I just want to -- I
3 just want to inform the Trial Chamber that we are -- that we are very
4 close to four hours right now overall -- of overall time for the
5 cross-examination. At this point already. Thank you very much.
6 What I was trying to say -- we don't -- we don't know at this
7 point whether we will use the whole four hours, but maybe it would be --
8 it would make sense that we notify the translation department, or whoever
9 we need to notify, that there might be additional time that is required
10 in the afternoon, if possible, of course.
11 Thank you very much.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE HALL
14 much time you think you have left in cross-examination of this witness?
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I have five or six questions and two
16 documents, that's all. Let's say 15 minutes.
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, are you asking for more than one
19 additional session this afternoon?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honour, we are not asking for anything
21 that we haven't asked before. We asked for four hours of cross.
22 Now if we add to the remaining -- the remaining hours plus one
23 session, I believe we are almost we are at four hours at this point, or
24 even a bit less than four hours.
25 So what we are asking is that we are given the full four hours.
1 If that means that we need to have an additional part of the second
2 session in the afternoon, so ... there might be a need for that. We
3 don't know at this point, Your Honours. I just wanted to put the
4 Trial Chamber on notice about that.
5 Thank you.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE HALL
8 to know what the position of the accused persons are, because the
9 immediate an obvious personal disadvantage to them is that a -- a further
10 extended session impinges on their exercise time and those ancillary
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours. Maybe we can continue,
13 and in the meantime find out if that is -- what the position of the --
14 JUDGE HALL
15 Registry has to make -- has to be notified as early as possible.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: If you give us a moment, we can --
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. ZECEVIC: We can communicate with our clients.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. ZECEVIC: There is no problem with the accused, Your Honours.
22 Thank you very much.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Zepinic, let us continue.
2 I will try not to dwell on documents too much. Let us see
3 document 2D030381 in e-court, please. And, Mr. Zepinic, you can find it
4 at tab 10.
5 This is a report about the criminal activities of
6 Veljko Milinkovic, who later led the paramilitary formation, the Wolves
7 from Vucjak, and he is mentioned as the perpetrator of many crimes
8 against the Muslim and Croatian populations.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the last part of
10 his question. It was too fast for the interpreters.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, unfortunately, the interpreters did
12 not catch the last part of your question so they ask that you repeat it.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Essentially what I wanted to ask
14 has been interpreted so that it is okay.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: But the witness's reply
16 was not translated. So could the witness please repeat also.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zepinic, could you be good enough to repeat
18 your answer to the question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was asked whether I was familiar
20 with his criminal activity after his arrest, and my reply was negative.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Zepinic, on page 4 of this document, where there is a
23 description of the misdeeds of this group, it says that Milan Hajrudinic
24 [phoen], a member shot five shots from his fire-arm and wounded a person
25 whose name we didn't catch. It's on page 4. A Muslim, obviously. It
1 was obviously a crime against a Muslim.
2 And the second part, so the second paragraph where it says that
3 the illegal activity of this group in the area of Prnjavor, which had
4 been going on for months causing fear and discomfort, created a rather
5 electrified situation among the staff of the police due to numerous
6 provocations and direct attacks on the -- on the police staff.
7 This activity also further aggravated inter-ethnic tensions
8 because this group consisted only of Serbs.
9 A. I didn't know about the ethnic composition of Milinkovic's group,
10 nor did I care. I was interested in what the security services could do
11 to stop the -- this illegal activity, this intimidation of the
12 population, including Muslims. That is, intimidation of the population
13 looting and threatening persons with fire-arms. I wanted this group to
14 be eliminated. But I cannot speak about the ethnic composition of that
15 group, nor was I at all interested in it. I was interested in taking all
16 measures possible to eliminate that group, and make it impossible for to
17 them to continue, especially since they had been as brazen to attack a
18 police station and members of the SJB.
19 Q. Only one part is missing, when you spoke that you were not
20 interested in the ethnic composition and of the attacks on Muslims,
21 although Mr. Zupljanin had informed you that entered.
22 A. Yes, I know that they intimidated some Muslims in the area, they
23 threatened them, and they even looted their houses. But they did the
24 same to persons of other ethnicities in the Banja Luka area, so that they
25 were a general -- generally dangerous for the population and the security
1 services in the Banja Luka region.
2 Q. And now you -- you omitted to say the part that I want to hear,
3 of which you were informed that Mr. Zupljanin --
4 A. I think that his deputy, Bajazid, if I remember well, a Muslim,
5 also informed me in one of his phone calls that the Muslim population in
6 the Banja Luka region was extremely discomforted due to these threats.
7 Also due to the fact the members of these groups were exclusively Serbs,
8 but that wasn't anything that I cared about.
9 Q. And on page 7, if you turn to that page, it says that the
10 investigative magistrate, the last sentence in this paragraph of the
11 court in Prnjavor, ruled on detention and that concluded your part of --
12 that put an end to your role in this.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Mr. Zepinic, you also received information that, among the
15 refugees, either Serbs or Croats that pass the through the territory of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, a certain number of members of armed forces was
17 hiding. I will show you a document dated the 5th of December, and that
18 will be my last document. It is Exhibit 2D020682.
19 This document essentially speaks about an incident at Kljuc,
20 where, on the occasion of the passing through of a convoy of refugees, a
21 number of ZNG members was detected; that is, Croatian soldiers who didn't
22 have any ID on them.
23 Please look at the document, page 2, the third paragraph from the
24 top, where there's a -- a general description, and it goes on on page 3.
25 A. Could you please tell me where exactly the document is?
1 Q. You can find it at tab 15. I apologise; I didn't mention that.
2 Basically on this second page, it says when a convoy passes a
3 state border and has a security escort, the -- normally the authorities
4 of Bosnia-Herzegovina had to be informed, and they would be escorted by
6 That was usual practice, wasn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It obviously follows from this report that this wasn't the case
9 here, and we can read that in the last paragraph, that this convoy was
10 checked, and a certain number of persons wearing MUP uniforms were found.
11 A. I don't remember this particular incident, but I know that we had
12 a problem with some convoys which were sometimes escorted by the European
13 community monitors or the Red Cross. But among those persons there were
14 sometimes people without any personal documents or persons that had taken
15 part in the combat in Croatia on either side.
16 Q. And the regular police procedure would have been when this convoy
17 was being checked for those people to produce their IDs, and if they
18 hadn't any, they would have been detained to verify their identity.
19 A. Yes. But most of the refugees that arrived were without any
20 personal documents so that was an additional problem for the operational
21 services in the area where such convoys were stopped, in order to check
22 the identity of these persons. It was impossible to do so, where they
23 were from, so frankly, we didn't know what to do with them.
24 Q. And normally since they were all conscripts, the police and
25 military organs were also included to conduct the necessary checkups.
1 A. Yes, we included all relevant factors in Bosnia-Herzegovina to
2 establish the identity of these persons to the -- to the extent possible,
3 because this was -- this occurred very frequently.
4 Q. And since these people came mostly by way of Kljuc or
5 Mrkonjic Grad that was mostly the route of those convoys, if you know
7 A. I cannot give you a precise answer as to the routes of those
8 convoys and where they were coming from. I remember that there were huge
9 problems with the establishment of the identity of persons on these
10 convoys and who wore various uniforms. Whether they were members of
11 armed forces in their country, Croatia, we were unable to tell, but there
12 were persons in uniform among them.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with regard to the
14 witness's reply, I would like to mark this document for identification.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D40, marked for identification,
17 Your Honours.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Zepinic, finally, you mentioned that you knew Mr. Zupljanin
20 and that you had contacts with him while you were an executive in the MUP
21 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So I'm referring to the period in which you
22 collaborated. And as far as can I tell from your evidence, he was a fair
23 co-worker of yours?
24 A. I cannot say anything to the contrary. He carried out
25 instructions passed on to him from the MUP. I can -- I know now that
1 there was some dispatches that he sent out behind my back, but, well ...
2 Q. Probably it was about a problem that cannot be taken care of in
3 the framework of the MUP, and you saw that some documents I showed you
4 were not only addressed to you only, but almost all relevant in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So if you want to resolve a problem that doesn't
6 depend on the MUP only, so you tried to find support wherever you can
7 find it, right?
8 A. Well, I did require my co-workers from the field to send copies
9 of any reports that say are sent to me to persons that covered security
10 issues from the cabinet or the assembly. It was a sort of attempt to
11 show, if nothing else, that other institutions and persons should be
12 worrying about the security situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina too, and not
13 only me.
14 Q. In other words, the burden of dealing with some problems that
15 reflect on the work of the MUP was handed over to a higher level.
16 A. The political parties should have dealt with some issues through
17 their agreement, but that hot potato was often transferred to the
18 Ministry of the Interior. Instead of dealing with the political issues
19 in the political way, things were done differently.
20 MS. KORNER: Just for the moment, going back to the transcript at
21 line 18:
22 "Q. Probably it was about the problem it cannot be taken care of
23 in the," it then reads, "FYROM work." Which is, by my understanding, the
24 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I don't know what the question
25 was, but it can't have been that.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. It has been recorded wrongly.
2 I asked you about the problem in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that
3 could not be resolved by the MUP. I was talking about Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina, not about Macedonia.
5 A. Yes, I agree with that.
6 Q. You will agree with me that under the circumstances and
7 especially in early 1992 when you were faced with the breakup of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina and mounting tensions, the MUP could not do more than
9 they could do during that period while you were in office in the MUP. Am
10 I right?
11 A. Well, the MUP could, and I'm sorry that we didn't. I'm sorry
12 that we did not arrest the members of the Presidency, the government, and
13 the assembly. I'm sorry that we did not stage a coupe and give the
14 people an opportunity to state their will. I'm sorry I didn't do that,
15 because I didn't do it because it would have been misconstrued. I was
16 not power-thirsty. All I wanted was for my former state to be the state
17 with a rule of law, for the laws to be implemented. However, I put
18 myself in a situation to have to confront those who thought that they
19 were the law. And that is why many of my colleagues asked me how come I
20 had not arrested all the Presidency members? How come I had not given
21 the people to -- an opportunity to state their will? At that moment, it
22 would have been the craziest of ideas. God know how I would have ended.
23 In any case, I would not have been able to testify here today. That's
24 the first reason.
25 And the second reason was that I was not at all interested in
2 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Zepinic. I have no further questions
3 for you.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I forgot to tender into evidence
5 2D030381. The document has been translated. It is the information about
6 the criminal activity of Veljko Milinkovic.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
9 document into evidence, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D41, Your Honours.
12 MS. KORNER: Just before counsel for Stanisic cross-examines.
13 Mr. Zepinic gave evidence on Thursday that he had listened to an
14 intercept of a conversation between Zupljanin and Karadzic, and that he
15 recognised the voice of Zupljanin from his dealings with him. There's
16 been no cross-examination on that, so can we take it there is no dispute
17 was indeed Mr. Zupljanin's voice that the witness heard on the intercept?
18 JUDGE HALL
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the time being
20 our position is identical to the position of Mr. Zecevic. We contest all
21 the intercepted conversations for the reasons that have been already been
22 put forth by my learned friend Mr. Zecevic. Neither I nor my client had
23 an opportunity to listen to the audiotapes, although they have been
24 disclosed to us, so I can't confirm this fact. I adhere to my position
25 that -- and I would like to defer my final position on the entirety of
1 the intercepted conversations to a later stage.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 saying is that, of course, the Chamber has made a ruling.
4 But I come back to ask Ms. Korner, could you remind me as to what
5 -- was it marked for identification?
6 MS. KORNER: It was, Your Honour. It's P887. And, Your Honour,
7 it is a different story. That's a different matter, whether or not, at
8 the end of cross-examination of any witnesses who may deal with the
9 actual recording and the like, that is one matter. But this witness has
10 given clear evidence that he recognises, and I emphasise, recognises the
11 voice. If the accused has not had an opportunity to listen to this, or
12 to read it - which surprises me, because it was uploaded into e-court, we
13 said we were going to do it, he must remember the conversation - then he
14 should do it before the witness leaves. Because, Your Honours, it is
16 This -- of course, is evidence which goes directly to whether or
17 not the voice on it is -- is that of -- of Mr. Zupljanin. And I said
18 this all along. It is clearly an important matter. And if there is it
19 an issue, then it has to be put to the witness.
20 This is it not something -- the obligation to put your case
21 relating to important matters is a strict one. It is not good enough to
22 say we haven't listened to it, and our position is we dispute everything
23 on intercepts. This the evidence.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may be heard on the matter, Your Honours, if
1 it pleases the Court.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe that Ms. Korner, with all
4 due respect, remark is unfounded. We have the ruling, which is very
5 explicit. Either the witness is a party or is present.
6 Now, if the witness says -- like in this case, I recognise the
7 voice. As I said previously, he might recognise the voice, but it
8 doesn't mean that the contents of the speech, of the conversation between
9 the two are such as they are in the transcript.
10 Therefore, it would be just a simple waste of time to
11 cross-examine the witness. We ask the witness, does he -- does he know
12 the contents of the -- of the -- of this particular conversation? He
13 says he doesn't. That is why it was offered for MFI in -- in accordance
14 with your -- with your ruling, Your Honours.
15 I mean, if we -- if we are supposed to ask the witness to confirm
16 that he recognised the other voice, I don't see what would be the point
17 except loss of time, with no -- with no particular reason whatsoever.
18 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, that is not right.
19 It does make a difference. And, Your Honour, leaving aside the
20 content, nobody is suggesting that should have to be dealt with, but the
21 voice recognition, I emphasise recognition, if it is disputed that this
22 is the voice of Zupljanin, then that's a different matter. We have to
23 call other evidence. If it is not disputed, then we don't have to. So
24 it is not a waste of time. May I say, I will be saying exactly the same
25 about the conversations with Stanisic. The content is one other matter,
1 you know, whether they have been interfered with or whatever. But the
2 voice -- that the witness can say, I recognise the voice is clearly
4 JUDGE HALL
5 that --
6 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... No, you have not
7 Your Honours. You have ruled that we cannot have it admitted if he was
8 not a party to the conversation.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 MS. KORNER: Yeah, or was present. But that is completely
11 different, Your Honour. We are entitled to know now, as soon as we deal
12 with this, whether or not there is a dispute, whatever the content may
13 be, that this is the voice of Zupljanin or Stanisic.
14 You cannot keep your powder dry forever. This is an important
15 part of the evidence, and we say you're obliged under the Rules and under
16 the ruling in the case of Brdjanin to put your case. Do you accept this
17 is the voice of Zupljanin and, later on, Stanisic or not?
18 It has nothing whatsoever to do as to whether the content has
19 been interfered with in some way.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just like Mr. Zecevic
23 our Defence has realised that the intercepts have been MFI'd until
24 further corroboration. And that's why I understood that I'm not supposed
25 to question the witnesses about the intercepts. I can, but, the way I
1 understood it, I did not include it in my cross-examination.
2 In any case, I can ask the witness about all that, and I can
3 spend about half an hour on that. But I don't think it will be of any
4 assistance to the Trial Chamber.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I'm sorry, this is beating around
6 the bush. The question that was put to you was: Do you accept that the
7 voice heard on this particular intercept is the voice of your client?
8 Yes or no.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
11 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, how can you say no, if you say you
12 haven't listened to it?
13 I'm sorry, Your Honours, that is simply not good enough. This is
14 a "no" simply said to Your Honours in answer to the question. Cannot be
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely so. Our position is as
17 follows. From the very beginning, when it comes to the intercepts, we
18 believed that they are not illegal, that they have not been taken in an
19 illegal way, that a context has not been established, that the identity
20 of the participants has not been established in a proper way. The
21 Prosecutor is taking shortcuts, and we do not accept their suggestions.
22 The first one that the voice indeed belongs to Stojan Zupljanin, and we
23 also dispute the context. I believe that the two facets of that same
24 issue should go together and that they should not be separated.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 over ground which is fully covered and in respect of which we have ruled.
2 In summary, what the position of the Prosecution is, is that when
3 the witness was led on -- when evidence is led from the witness on this
4 point in respect of this particular item he says that he recognised the
5 voice as of that Zupljanin.
6 The -- your inability to challenge that evidence, that positive
7 evidence which the witness gave, is, as I understand it, based on the
8 fact that the -- you, with the assistance of your client of course, have
9 not had an opportunity to yourselves to have heard the transcript -- to
10 have heard the intercept. The -- and the -- I don't know what your
11 position is in terms of the transcript of the -- of the intercept. But
12 the position of the Prosecution is that the document, having been marked
13 for identification on the basis that there was this challenge to -- is
14 really a question of weight, not admissibility. The result would be if
15 you failed to go further, that the document would -- the condition which
16 would have been imposed by the -- only having been marked for
17 identification would then disappear.
18 I think that that's a fair summary of the Prosecution's position.
19 MS. KORNER: Can I explain.
20 There is evidence before the Court that, whether or not the --
21 the intercept is actually fully admitted after you have heard about its
22 provenance and so forth, that the voice on it is that of
23 Stojan Zupljanin.
24 That is clearly an important matter. Because it goes to all --
25 it corroborates the identification which may be made in the future by the
1 person who recorded it, which we have dealt with, which Judge Harhoff
2 related to.
3 It is therefore important evidence. That evidence is now before
4 the Court. If it is later to be challenged, when, and if, Zupljanin were
5 to give evidence, then it would be quite wrong that it had not been put
6 to this witness who has given positive affirmative evidence, and that is
7 the purpose of the rule that one must put the case. Otherwise, it would
8 entail getting Dr. Zepinic back again. And that is why it has put. And
9 Mr. Krgovic is simply saying this for the sake of saying this. If what
10 he is saying is correct, that neither he nor his client have actually
11 listened to the intercept, there is no problem by that. In the next
12 adjournment, we have got them all on CD; we can get him; he can listen to
14 What I'm asking Your Honours to do is make a ruling that, it is
15 so important, if it is disputed it must be put at this stage.
16 That's the ruling I'm asking for.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] We can actually play the
19 intercept straightaway. We've got it here.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 proposing to actually play the intercept in Court?
22 MS. KORNER: Yes, so that, Your Honours, there can be no problem
23 about Mr. Zupljanin hearing his voice, so he doesn't have to wait for the
24 adjournment. We can play it right now. And then we can have whether or
25 not this is his voice.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 even if that were done, it cannot compel the Defence to answer the
3 question as to whether they accept that it is the voice of Zupljanin or
4 not, because that would be to -- that would, in essence, require them
5 to --
6 MS. KORNER: Reveal their hand, yes.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 -- the accused Zupljanin, which would be a clear violation of all the
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, with the greatest of respect, that
11 simply is not right. They are obliged, if they don't agree with what is
12 being said, to put what is their case. What is the Defence case?
13 There has been evidence now given by, as I put -- as I said
14 earlier, a far more qualified witness than any of -- any of the
15 technicians or whatever to dealt with this. That -- that's the point of
16 putting a case. It is not incriminating your client; it is it whether it
17 is disputed.
18 We had this argument. That's what the whole appeal is about in
19 the case of Brdjanin. The case against Brdjanin was that he went on the
20 radio and made inflammatory statements against non-Serbs. And we -- we
21 got to the position where a witness gave evidence of those inflammatory
22 statements; it was not challenged by Mr. Ackerman who was defending
23 Brdjanin. And I asked the same question. I said, Is it disputed that he
24 made those statements? Yes, it is, said Ackerman, but I'm not going to
25 put it, I don't have to. And that's why that case went to appeal, and
1 that's the authority.
2 So now we have clear evidence this is the voice of Zupljanin. If
3 it is disputed -- and this is an good reason for this, Your Honour,
4 because if is disputed that it is his voice, leaving aside whether there
5 has been any inference with it, we have to call a great deal of more
6 evidence. And that's why the Defence cannot sit on what is their Defence
7 - indeed they should have said all of this in their pre-trial brief but
8 didn't - whether it is accepted that's his voice.
9 It is not incriminating his client. It is it putting a proper
10 case. This is the Defence case: We do not agree this is his voice.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
12 MS. KORNER: Just a moment, Mr. Zecevic, let me finish.
13 They're saying we don't -- at the moment Mr. Krgovic is saying I
14 don't know one way or another whether it is his voice or not. But if he
15 is actually going to say having heard this, or if that is their case,
16 that is not even the voice of Mr. Zupljanin, there is an grave mistake,
17 and Dr. Zepinic has made a grave mistake in identifying it, then that is
18 something that we are entitled to know right now because it reflects on
19 evidence we have to call. It is one of the reasons why there is an
20 obligation to put your case.
21 I cannot make it any clearer than that, Your Honour.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I'll try
23 and be very concise and very brief.
24 There is a significant difference between the Brdjanin and
25 Zupljanin case because we're talking about a show that was aired on the
1 radio; whereas, here, we're talking about the intercepts. We claim and
2 our position is clear that those were illegal listening-in exercises
3 which were not allowed under the law. Therefore, there could be no
4 parallel between the Brdjanin case and the ruling in the Brdjanin case
5 and this situation.
6 I really understand Ms. Korner's desire. However, at the end of
7 the day, she is only interested in the contents of the transcript of the
8 intercept in question. This is her primary interest. Of course, she is
9 interested in finding out that that was, indeed, a conversation between
10 the two individuals. However, the essence of the matter lies in the
11 transcript itself.
12 Therefore, I really believe that it was a waste of time if we are
13 put in a position to question every witness and ask them to recognise the
14 voice of the participants. Needless to say, they are not qualified to
15 recognise or to engage in voice recognition exercises.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 question of legality, it's only issue of contents that remains.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour, I'm just
19 trying to put things in a context and tell you what the position of the
20 Defence has been from the very start of this case. That's why I
21 mentioned this, but I'm fully aware of the ruling made by this
22 Trial Chamber. There is nothing in dispute there.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL
25 counsel from both sides and essentially has decided not to revisit the
1 ruling that it has already made. We fully understand the logic and, if I
2 may so, immanently sensible position which the Prosecution has taken but
3 if the -- for tactical reasons, the Defence chooses not to show their
4 hand at this point, Then, of course, certain consequences will follow for
5 both sides. But the Chamber will not revisit the ruling that it gave
6 last week.
7 MS. KORNER: All right, Your Honour, I'm asking you this now on
8 record. It is your ruling that there is no obligation for the Defence to
9 put its case on the voice recognition by this witness of both accused on
11 JUDGE HALL
12 rather than accepting your -- adopting your formulation.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I'm asking -- because I'm
14 asking for, obviously -- can I make it clear, I consider this to be a
15 matter of such importance I'm asking for a clear ruling that we can, if
16 necessary, ask for an appeal.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, the ruling that we have made is that
18 the identity of a person who speaks in an intercept can be verified by
19 the interceptor; or can be verified by a witness, if that witness was
20 himself a party to the conversation, or was present in the room when the
21 conversation took place.
22 So the short answer to your point is that we do not believe that
23 Mr. Zepinic, as much as he may be able to recognise the voice, and as
24 much as we also think that it would be very helpful if the Defence would
25 agree to that, that Mr. Zepinic is not the appropriate witness to certify
1 the identity of Mr. Zupljanin's voice.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I know that was your ruling, and I was
3 prepared to leave that ruling, as it was. But this is a different
4 aspect, and it's a different ruling.
5 If your ruling is that there is no obligation as -- I'm sorry I
6 just need to go back to the words that were used. If for tactical -- you
7 are ruling, that the Defence are entitled, to, for tactical reasons not
8 to put what its case is on what is a vital part of our case. That's why
9 I have asked for a clear ruling, Your Honours, because we say, with the
10 greatest respect, that cannot be right and is not within the Rules.
11 There comes a point which, as I say, should have taken place at
12 the pre-trial brief stage, by the Defence, where they have their
13 obligation to put their case and cannot, for tactical reasons, refrain.
14 This is such a case --
15 JUDGE HALL
16 interrupt, that rather than adopting your formulation, the Chamber would
17 choose its own language. We are not ruling as broadly, as you
18 represented, that the tactical reasons the Defence has no obligation just
19 to indicate its case. Clearly we would not rule that. What we have said
20 is that in this specific issue of whether the Defence has to disclose its
21 position on the positive evidence of this witness in which he says he
22 recognises the voice of Zupljanin on the tape, the Chamber will not
23 require the Defence to do so. The Defence must -- and that is why I used
24 the word tactical. The Defence must presumably know why it is running
25 its case in the way this it is. There are, of course, with everything in
1 life, consequences that follow from such decisions as are taken. But the
2 very narrow ruling of the -- of the Chamber on this, is that the Chamber,
3 in its view, cannot require the Defence to so answer the question as put
4 by the Prosecution. It's as narrow as that.
5 MS. KORNER: There are no consequences because as I remarked
6 yesterday or -- not yesterday, there is no ability to -- to make a wasted
7 cost order against the Defence. The logical progression from this ruling
8 is, as we don't know one way or another whether if and when the defendant
9 gave -- the accused gave evidence they would accept it was their voices,
10 we will have to instruct people, experts to make voice identifications
11 which will be identifications done by experts which costs an enormous
12 amount of money because we don't know what the Defence is, and you won't
13 order them to put it.
14 It is it simple as that. The waste of money is fantastic.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, our ruling says that this witness
16 cannot certify the voice of any accused in -- in the case we're talking,
17 now, he was not present, et cetera, et cetera. So what -- what would the
18 Defence have to answer to? He cannot -- he says he recognises, but we
19 ruled he cannot.
20 MS. KORNER: Well, how can he --
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: So that finishes the business.
22 MS. KORNER: Well, no, it doesn't, Your Honour, because it is
23 still evidence, because I asked about that when you made this ruling. I
24 see Mr. Zecevic is standing. It would be preferable if he sat down and
25 waited until I finished.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I just wanted to indicate to the Trial Chamber that
2 I have something to say. Thank you.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I asked whether I was prohibited from
4 asking the witness whether he recognised, and I underline and emphasise
5 recognised, the voice, and I was told not.
6 So in this case, there is evidence that this witness who knew
7 Zupljanin for a number of years and even better new Stanisic recognises
8 the voice.
9 Now that is evidence which is admissible because you ruled it to
10 be admissible; the weight that you give it is another matter. But
11 clearly the weight is additionally added to it if it is not disputed that
12 it is his voice. And it makes Dr. Zepinic in his recognition a more
13 credible witness. That's why it is it important. It also, as I said
14 before, corroborates whatever evidence, if it is accepted, we get
15 relating to the actual recording.
16 So it cannot be said that it is not relevant, admissible,
17 important evidence.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will say only the
19 following so as not to use more time.
20 I really consider it very unfair on the part of the OTP to accuse
21 the Defence and everybody else of squandering money on experts and the
23 The fact is the following. My client voluntarily agreed to an
24 interview with the OTP. He was interviewed for six days and not one
25 intercept was played to him. The OTP had its opportunity then to play
1 all those intercepts, and Mr. Stanisic would have been in a position to
2 reply to his questions because he had agreed to those interviews but not
3 one intercept was shown to him, nor was he asked about them.
4 So it is the right of any accused to remain silent. So I have
5 nothing else to add.
6 Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 MR. CVIJETIC: Okay.
9 [Interpretation] Can I start, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zepinic.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. I'm Slobodan Cvijetic, and I am a member of the Defence team of
16 Mr. Mico Stanisic.
17 Now it is my turn to ask some questions. Well, some is an
18 understatement; there are going to be quite a few. But before I start
19 asking questions --
20 JUDGE HALL
21 been informed by the Registry that we can sit until 5.30 today. So we
22 would resume -- at 1.45, we would resume at 2.30 with a view to sitting
23 until 5.30 with a suitable break somewhere in between that.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Q. Well, before I start asking you questions, I will just ask you,
1 since we speak the same language, to follow the transcript, and once my
2 question is recorded, start giving your answer. I know you speak
3 English. I hope that you understand what I said.
4 A. I will try to comply with your request, as best I can.
5 Q. Thank you. Let me first return to that part of the
6 examination-in-chief that took place on Thursday and Friday, in order to
7 clarify some things and thus enable the Chamber to understand how such an
8 important part of the public administration as the MUP functioned.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can I please ask the Registrar to
10 show the -- to show Exhibit P875 to the witness. That is, to put it up
11 on the screen.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could the Registry please inquire what this is.
13 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please enlarge the upper
16 part, showing the first three persons, or the three highest ranking
17 persons. All right, I believe that this will do. Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Zepinic, here you see the organisational structure of the
19 MUP, and we can see what it looks like. At the head of the ministry
20 there is the minister, Mr. Delimustafic, followed by yourself and
21 Mr. Mico Stanisic to the left and the right respectively.
22 This is the moment when Mr. Stanisic was an advisor to the
23 minister for national security. That I believe was the exact official
24 title that will he had.
25 A. I'm not sure whether that's the exact name, but, yes, he was an
2 Q. All right. In this hierarchy of the MUP, you will agree with me
3 when I say that, if Mr. Delimustafic was the number one man, you would
4 have been the number two man?
5 A. Well, yes, that's what follows.
6 Q. But then you will agree that Mr. Stanisic, at least graphically,
7 shouldn't be at the same level with you, because in the MUP hierarchy
8 there is no vertical line down from him in the hierarchy and in the
9 command of the MUP?
10 A. I don't know who made this schematic. Apart from Mr. Stanisic
11 there were two more advisors in the MUP. It wasn't just Mr. Stanisic.
12 Q. But have you listened to my question? But do you agree with what
13 I said, what I put to you?
14 A. What did you say?
15 Q. That, in the MUP hierarchy, Mr. Stanisic, as an advisor, doesn't
16 have a vertical line down from his position, so he doesn't -- he doesn't
17 have subordinates in the MUP.
18 A. Yes, I agree.
19 Q. All right, you agree.
20 Let me put it this way. His position and his authority starts
21 and ends inside the minister's office. Basically the minister and him
22 depend on each other.
23 A. Well, the minister depends on both of us.
24 Q. But you agree, basically, with the rest of what I said. He is in
25 the minister's office?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Well, speaking about which, can you please state the names of the
3 other advisors.
4 A. Milan Krizanovic, but now, frankly I can't remember the name of
5 the financial advisor.
6 Q. All right. I believe that we have explained this, and you will
7 agree that possibly in this schematic, his position should probably have
8 been depicted differently?
9 A. No, I don't agree with that statement. I think that
10 Mr. Stanisic's position should not have been depicted here at all.
11 Q. Yes, because it's specific. He was an advisor in the minister's
13 A. Exactly.
14 Q. That's what I was trying to say. The point is that he is absent
15 from the organisational structure of the MUP, and obviously we agree
16 about that. Thank you.
17 My next question follows from -- follows up on some of your
18 answers provided to the OTP. And before I put that question to you, I'll
19 ask the usher to hand this binder to you. The -- this is evidence I'm
20 about to show you, so you'll have hard copies, and we don't have to look
21 at the screens.
22 Please go directly to tab 2 in the binder.
23 A. Excuse me, what about this?
24 Q. We'll use that later. Just put it down for the time being. It
25 isn't numbered.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: 1D011054 is the reference for the Chamber.
2 While the Registrar is looking for that, I'll just say that is
3 the Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's the expurged version.
5 Am I being signalled that it is time for a break?
6 Right, Mr. Zepinic, we'll break off here and continue right where
7 we broke off.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I hope Ms. Korner is not proofing the witness.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I was distracted by
14 something that happened outside court.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE HALL
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Let's
18 just wait for the witness to get ready.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Go ahead, Mr. Cvijetic.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Let us now try to clarify another topic, namely, the position to
22 which Mr. Stanisic was appointed and you signed the decision, you said,
23 while he was at the city secretariat of the interior of Sarajevo.
24 In your statement, that is in one sentence, that you uttered in
25 replying to a question, you mentioned two positions of his. You said
1 that he was the chief of the CSB
2 of the city SUP
3 So let me ask you now to go to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the law
4 you have in front of you.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the English version, I believe
6 that's on page 7. In the B/C/S version, it's Article 26, paragraph 2. I
7 hope both versions are aligned or -- well, these are both the B/C/S
8 versions. Let us display the English version for the Chamber. All right
10 Let us see how the law regulates that, then we will have no
12 So the law distinguishes between these two organisational forms.
13 One is the CSB
14 the secretariat of the interior of the city of Sarajevo. Is that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So let us try and distinguish this from now on. So Mr. Stanisic
18 was the secretary of the secretariat of the interior of the city of
19 Sarajevo. Isn't that correct? And that's what the decision you signed
21 A. I don't know what the decision reads.
22 THE INTERPRETER: We can't hear the answer of the witness because
23 of the background noise produced by Mr. Cvijetic with shuffling through
24 the binder.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 from the background noise from your papers. So if you could -- yes.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I did not switch off the
3 microphone. We'll find the decision so we know what the law stipulates.
4 Q. And let's now find your decision under which number it can be
5 found. We put it back on the screen too.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] P888 is the exhibit number.
7 Q. And in your binder, Mr. Zepinic, It's number 56. At the very
8 end. I believe we'll come to terms about that very soon. Once read your
9 own decision, please read out what the decision is called.
10 A. Secretary to the SUP
11 Q. Am I right?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Go ahead.
14 A. You must distinguish the secretary to the SUP of the city of
15 Sarajevo and the secretary of the --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you please repeat.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We must distinguish the chief of
19 the CSB
20 Banja Luka. Likewise, we must distinguish between the chief of the SUP
21 of Sarajevo, which covers also Romanija, and the city SUP of Sarajevo.
22 If you ask me who the secretary in the city SUP of Sarajevo was,
23 I don't know.
24 Q. Then I will read out to you the names of persons in the
25 respective positions.
1 The chief of the CSB
2 Mr. Stanisic was secretary -- at the secretariat of the interior of
3 Sarajevo as an organisational unit of the SJB -- sorry, CSB, and in line
4 with the law.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do we agree now?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Then we are saying things that aren't provided for by the law.
9 I'll put the following to you. This may explain the situation.
10 Before Mr. Stanisic, Mr. Zeljko Iljic was in that position, and
11 after him there was Mr. Kijac [phoen]?
12 A. You know, sir, can you not expect me to remember all the names
13 and all positions of the MUP and when Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Kemo Sabovic
14 replaced somebody else.
15 Q. Well, I had expected that we would clarify this, but the Chamber
16 will interpret the regulations because in the regulations I can see two
17 organisational structures and two persons in two different positions.
18 But if you cannot help us, let's proceed.
19 Do tell me now that we're speaking about the SUP of Sarajevo or,
20 as you say, the city of Sarajevo, tell us, within whose purview was
21 securing large gatherings, political order, such as the Assembly of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, party rallies or conferences, et cetera?
23 A. That was in the purview of the Ministry of the Interior, and the
24 ministry decided in accordance with its regulations that the chief of the
25 municipal secretariats to provide security for the facilities in
2 Q. Do you remember that on the occasion with some incident involving
3 Mrs. Ostojic an order to the city SUP
4 some personalities from political life such as Mr. Izetbegovic,
5 Mr. Karadzic, et cetera.
6 Do you remember that may have been your order?
7 A. Possibly. I cannot be sure whether it was or wasn't. But it was
8 certainly an order that was passed on from the ministry to our
9 subordinate structures to carry out some tasks that involved providing
10 security to facilities and persons.
11 Q. Let's call that lower organisational level the city SUP.
12 A. Or to police stations in the city of Sarajevo.
13 Q. All right. Let us move on to the third topic. So we're still
14 dealing with the same law.
15 So if you wouldn't mind, let's look at Article 36 and Article 37.
16 Let me see where that is in the English translation. It's the same
17 document. Or, actually, you're right, we must return to 1D011054. That
18 is the law. I apologise. I forgot that I called up another exhibit.
19 All right. In the English version, this is on pages 10 and 11,
20 and in the B/C/S version the Articles are 36 and 37. I believe that this
21 is it in both linguistic versions, but possibly they should be enlarged.
22 If you don't mind, Mr. Zepinic, do read these two Articles but
23 you may know them anyway.
24 A. Which Articles?
25 Q. 36 and 37. The law stipulates two types of units you spoke
1 about. With other professionals from your line of business, we discussed
2 this and checked it. So -- and we found out that Article 36 covers the
3 Special Police brigade. Do you agree with me?
4 A. "Because the nature of the duties and tasks under Article 33,
5 appropriate police units shall be established for the purpose within the
6 Republican Secretariat."
7 Q. Yes, that should be the spot.
8 So does this cover the special brigade?
9 A. No. This refers to any police unit, including traffic police,
10 but also unit providing security to persons and facilities including
11 Special Police.
12 Q. Very well. Article 37 states that so-called PJP, that is special
13 units, ad hoc units, can be established. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes, that was a possibility for -- for establishing such units in
15 case of need.
16 Q. And the essence of my question, and you can see that in the law
17 also, that it was the exclusive right of the minister to establish such
18 units and appoint their commanders.
19 A. No. This reads the Republican Secretary. That's not the same
21 Q. Very well. You are right; it says the Republican Secretary,
22 because this is the old law in which the old terminology can be found.
23 Mr. Zepinic, can you find where the law refers to any other type
24 of unit or any other person with the authority to establish such a type
25 of police units, in the law?
1 A. To answer this question, I would have to be a lawyer, which I'm
2 not. And, secondly, you should have given me the document in advance for
3 me to read it through thoroughly and familiarise myself with it. But if
4 the Chamber wants me to do so, I can read this for a couple of hours and
5 then I will be able to answer such questions.
6 Q. Let's go on. We'll call specialists for laws and regulations who
7 can then interpret this for us.
8 The next thing I wanted to deal with is the relationship that
9 existed between the MUP and the Presidency, or the cabinet respectively.
10 In a situation of the imminent threat of war or in a state of war, can
11 you tell me what the respective strengths of the Presidency or the
12 cabinet were in relation to the MUP?
13 A. You mean who was number one and who was number two?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Well, number one is the Presidency, and number two is the
17 Q. It seems to me that the Presidency could even directly speak to
18 the minister.
19 A. [In English] Translation is not correct. The number one is
20 Presidency, and number two is the cabinet. I would say government.
21 [No interpretation]
22 [In English] I'm sorry for intervention.
23 Q. All right. The Presidency, in some cases, had the right to deal
24 directly with the minister with -- about security-related issues?
25 A. [Interpretation] Correct.
1 Q. Let me now move on to a question that was put to you, and when
2 you spoke about the rhetoric of ethnic leaders or leaders of ethnically
3 based parties. To be more specific it was a question of the rhetoric
4 used by Mr. Karadzic?
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, just one moment, please, something
6 wrong with the record. What is said after the intervention of the
7 witness, because what he said was not correct. Is exactly the same as
8 what he said before. Well, number one is the Presidency, and number two
9 is the cabinet. And then the witness says, No, that is not correct. And
10 now re-read the number one is the Presidency, and the number two is the
11 cabinet. It is exactly the same.
12 So let's -- let's have that right of what the witness wants --
13 the difference with.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour, you're right.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may be of assistance, I believe the witness
16 was having -- taking an issue with the interpretation of he said Vlada,
17 and it was interpreted as cabinet, and he said government. But cabinet
18 and government are basically the same thing. That's -- that was the
19 intervention as I -- I understand stood the witness to be.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the judge, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but that is not the
22 same thing. Sorry, Mr. Zecevic, it's not the same.
23 [In English] Cabinets or prime minister is something different
24 than the government.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you meant --
1 THE WITNESS: I would say -- sorry for intervention again. I
2 would say number one was the Presidency, and number two was the
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Very well. That was the essence of the question, and I don't
7 want to go into terminological issues such as cabinet or government.
8 You -- we spoke about the rhetoric of ethnic leaders, the
9 specific question asked of you was about the rhetoric of Mr. Karadzic.
10 You will agree with me, won't you, Mr. Zepinic, that such
11 nationalist rhetoric was also used by the leaders of other
12 ethnically-based parties, namely the SDA, and the HDZ. Am I right,
13 especially in the election campaign?
14 A. If you listen to me attentively on Thursday and Friday, I said
15 that this applies to all ethnic leaders. Specifically this was about
16 Dr. Karadzic, but the language used didn't differ when it comes to other
17 ethnic leaders either. They swore less frequently.
18 Q. You will agree with me when I say that, with this
19 ethnically-centred or nationalist rhetoric Mr. Izetbegovic, at least
20 officially, started with the Islamic declaration but which you, as a
21 police officer, certainly know.
22 A. Yes, the Islamic declaration is something I know from the time
23 when Mr. Izetbegovic was sentenced for nationalism.
24 Q. Yes. It has been admitted into evidence already, and I won't
25 quote that declaration anymore because historians have already commented
2 But let me ask you whether you, as a police officer, know that it
3 was reprinted at the beginning of the election campaign in 1990, that it
4 was part of the party programme of the SDA?
5 A. I must correct you, I'm not a police officer. And secondly, if
6 you ask me about the first printing of the Islamic declaration, then I
7 can say that it was printed in Belgrade for the campaign of
8 Mr. Izetbegovic which was micro-nationalism. Mr. Seselj and Mr. Cosic
9 were the greatest opponents to the Prosecution of Mr. Izetbegovic.
10 THE WITNESS: [In English] Give me an opportunity to explain,
11 because the question is regarding second publishing Islamic declaration
12 written by Mr. Izetbegovic. I have no recollection, and I have no
13 evidence about such declaration being published or not. It wasn't my
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. But you have, actually, answered my question. Just please focus
17 on what I ask you.
18 Can you agree with me when I say that the Croats, too, had their
19 nationalist rhetoric and that they put that into practice by establishing
20 the HZHB?
21 A. I cannot agree with you for one reason. You're mentioning a
22 Herzegovinian Croatian party established by Mr. Mate Boban, if I remember
23 will, in March 1990. That party or that entity was part of the Croatian
24 Democratic Union from Zagreb. That department, probably reinforced by
25 the efforts of Mr. Susak and others from the Western Herzegovina, in
1 August 1990 it changed its name to Croatian Democratic Union, and for
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and its president elected was Dr. Davor
4 Q. All right. I would then show you the document relating to the
5 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna when we get there.
6 Let me first show you a video-clip that was used in
7 examination-in-chief the exhibit number is 1D108, if I'm not mistaken.
8 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry, I made a mistake.
10 I think it has a 65 ter number.
11 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] It's the Death of
12 Yugoslavia. It's -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We found it. P907.
14 Q. Please pay attention to the uniformed persons, the persons in
15 uniform that will appear there.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 THE NARRATOR: "But he didn't know it would start from his own
18 side. It happened as the guests arrived at a Serb wedding. A Muslim
19 killed the father of the groom. That night, Serbs hit back.
20 THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] Hands up. Come here.
21 THE NARRATOR: "The gunmen erected armed barricades all over the
22 Bosnian capital.
23 THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] It's just a chisel, mate. The
24 Serbs of Sarajevo demand, number one, that the Bosnian government
25 unconditionally put an end to all efforts seeking international
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Now, stop it here, please.
4 Can you recognise who this is?
5 A. I don't remember the face, but this is a paramilitary belonging
6 to the SDA.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's go on.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. And now?
11 A. If you're asking me about the persons, I cannot identify them. I
12 can't. I really cannot.
13 [Video-clip played]
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We'll stop it here.
15 Q. As a police officer, did you have a chance to meet Juka Prazina?
16 A. No, I have never met Juka Prazina in my life. It is it another
17 story that he incarcerated me when the war started, but I never met him
18 in person.
19 Q. But did you meet him when he incarcerated you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right. Then our argument that one of the persons seen in the
22 video is him cannot be confirmed by you.
23 A. No.
24 Q. But what can you tell us about him? Who is he? What was he?
25 A. He was a pre-war criminal, who, very soon, became the commander
1 of paramilitary units in Sarajevo, and, as far as I know, he was one of
2 the first to be appointed general in the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And
3 he gathered around him a company of criminals. They divided the town
4 among them, and within three days they very efficiently robbed all food
5 in Sarajevo and stores, cars. They even stole a -- the chair from a
6 friend -- a friend of mine's barbershop in Sarajevo. So they went about
7 robbing and looting.
8 Q. Did you know that under his control one of the unofficial prisons
9 were founded?
10 A. I don't know whether that prison was under the control of
11 Juka Prazina. But I know that there were a number of private prisons
12 around Sarajevo and that anybody and their uncle could open them, and
13 they did. And those prisons were not only for the Serbs but also for
14 those who did not agree with the concept of crimes that were launched
15 immediately after -- at the outbreak of war.
16 Q. Very well. As we're talking about the barricades, the footage
17 started with the incident involving the murder of two members of a
18 Serbian wedding party.
19 As far as I know, the perpetrators were immediately identified,
20 arrested, and immediately released. Is that correct?
21 A. No, it is not correct that they were immediately released. The
22 Ministry of the Interior identified the perpetrators, it arrested them,
23 they were remanded into custody for as long as they could be remanded, as
24 can be confirmed by Messrs. Zupljanin and Stanisic. We were only allowed
25 to keep them for three days, and we sent the criminal report to the
1 Prosecutor's office for Bosnia-Herzegovina for further proceedings.
2 I don't know why Mr. Kovac, who was the public Prosecutor at the
3 time, rejected our report. You should ask him. As far as the security
4 services, everything was done professionally and under the law. When it
5 came to the perpetrators of those murders, they were indeed brought in
6 and kept for as long as we could keep them.
7 Q. Is it true that during the interviews they said that they had
8 done what they did and pursuant to the instructions from the office of
9 Mr. Izetbegovic?
10 A. I was informed about that by the investigators that Mr. Delic,
11 also known as Celo, who was one of the persons who had stated that the
12 order arrived from the office of Mr. Izetbegovic and the -- he followed
13 that order.
14 Q. And now just one more question before I move on, a question of --
15 with regard to the incidents that happened during that time.
16 Just briefly, do you know anything about the attacks against the
17 army, and did you personally intervene in some situations? And I mean
18 Grude and other such instances. Just briefly.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who were the perpetrators of those attacks.
21 A. The attacks were perpetrated against the column of military
22 vehicles, and it was carried out by paramilitary units and paramilitaries
23 in certain locations and areas. That happened in the Neretva Valley
25 Q. Very well. Who were those paramilitaries?
1 A. Those paramilitaries were composed of various criminal groups,
2 similar to Mr. Milinkovic in the Banja Luka region. And if you're asking
3 me, their main purpose was not ethnically based.
4 They were primarily criminals, and they used every opportunity to
5 tip the security situation in the area by launching attacks against
6 military facilities, police stations, not only in western Herzegovina but
7 all over Bosnia-Herzegovina.
8 Q. The crime in Sijekovac dates back to that very early period. Is
9 it true that the Special Police brigade returned from that area or
10 ordered to return from that area and that the Croats did not allow them
11 to intervene?
12 A. Mr. Cvijetic, that's not true. I did not allow the
13 Special Police unit to go in and intervene in Sijekovac for a simple
14 reason. At the previous government session we had considered the
15 possibility. I apologise, it was an extended session of the Presidency
16 and the government. There was a request for the Special Police units to
17 intervene and to take over the role of a buffer zone. I will tell you
18 what I replied to Mr. Izetbegovic on that occasion. I told him that
19 every buffer, once it returns, is stained with blood. I believe that the
20 situation in Sijekovac had to be dealt with in political ways and not by
21 way of the intervention launched by a Special Police unit.
22 Q. And now just a very brief question. Who perpetrated the crime?
23 A. What crime?
24 Q. The crime in Sijekovac?
25 A. As far as I know, it with a was a group led by --
1 THE INTERPRETER: It is it impossible to hear the witness because
2 of the shuffling of the papers coming from the counsel.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 microphone because they are picking up your papers.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the name of the
6 leader of the paramilitary group.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zepinic, what was the name of the leader of
8 the paramilitary group that you just mentioned?
9 THE WITNESS: I think, Your Honour, it was Armin Pohara. I know
10 his name, because he was a president of Green Party.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Cvijetic please switch off his
12 microphone. Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues]... in early 1990s.
14 [Interpretation] At the time when his deputy was Dr. Karadzic.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Thank you.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Which units he belonged to when he carried out attack on
19 A. I can't tell you. I don't know. I know that the ministry
20 established a commission to carry out an investigation with regard to
21 that murder and the massacre. Not only murders but a veritable massacre
22 committed against the civilian population of Sijekovac.
23 As far as I know, I apologise if I'm mistaken, I believe that a
24 police officer also got killed in at that attack.
25 Q. Very well. Let us move on to the following document.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let me just see whether it already
2 has a number. The document is P885.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. In your tab it is document under -- in your binder, it is
6 document under tab 57.
7 A. Thank you.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. You've already seen the document. You saw it during the
11 examination-in-chief. It is an intercept of a conversation. Could you
12 please look at page 3 in the B/C/S version.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's try and locate the
14 corresponding English page. We need page 4 in B/C/S. The following page
15 in B/C/S, please.
16 Q. Very well. Let's just see -- this is a text. Look at the lower
17 part where Mr. Karadzic says:
18 "I spoke to them, and I calmed them down."
19 And now I need a corresponding section in the English version. I
20 believe it is on page 5; isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you see that? The document has already been shown to you, as
23 I have already said. And you said, on the 28th of January, on page 573,
24 you put this conversation in a context, and you identified the voice of
25 Mico Stanisic.
1 Could you please read both paragraphs?
2 A. I have to correct you. You have to look carefully, to see
3 whether I indeed said that I had recognised Mr. Stanisic or I said that I
4 assumed that it could be Mr. Stanisic. We're talking about two entirely
5 different things. He does mention a Mico. I don't know which Mico is in
6 question. I didn't state that for a fact, so check that.
7 Q. Did you read what it says here?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. That's why I'm asking because you said that you allow for the
10 possibility that that was indeed Mr. Stanisic. However, let's just agree
11 on one thing. It transpired from the second part of Karadzic's
12 conversation with yourself that the person was an MP in the assembly who
13 was also a member of the council of municipalities, and if he was removed
14 somebody else would be given his position, and so on and so forth.
15 A. I repeat, I don't know whether that person was indeed
16 Mico Stanisic or somebody else. And I have already stated that several
17 times. I don't know whether Stanisic was a member of the SDS party at
18 the time, and whether he was an MP in the Serbian Democratic Party.
19 MS. KORNER: It was put to him that he identified the voice of
20 Stanisic; no, he didn't.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not correct, not correct,
22 Your Honours. I'm putting it to the witness that, based on the nickname
23 Mico he allowed for the possibility that that person was indeed
24 Mico Stanisic. We never heard the voice of the alleged Mico.
25 MS. KORNER: I appreciate that. In the question he put at page
1 78, something -- the line has gone up now. He said: "You identified the
2 voice of Mr. Stanisic."
3 No, he didn't. 78, line 19. Thank you.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sure that the
5 interpretation was wrong. I didn't use the term "voice." We never
6 listened to the recording; there is no way I could have used the word
8 Q. You will agree with me, therefore, that identification based on
9 nicknames is something that one has to be cautious about.
10 A. That's what I stated. It was just my assumption. It was not a
11 definite identification of Mr. Mico Stanisic.
12 Q. Thank you very much. Let's move on to a different topic.
13 But before I do that, you asked me about a document that is
14 separate in the first group of documents. And let me ask you this.
15 Namely, this is 1D108, when you were talking about -- let's just see it
16 on the screen. And can we immediately move to the second page in the
17 B/C/S version, which is immediately after the page that is now on the
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 2 immediately.
20 Thank you very much.
21 Q. And I assume that it would be the second page in the English
22 version. But if not, then we'll manage with what we have.
23 The bottom part says that the Presidency established a
24 Crisis Staff. I believe that ... yes, now we have the correct pages.
25 You were telling us about your attempts to intervene with regard to the
1 barricades, and you claimed -- and you told us who had you called with
2 this regard, and they referred to Mr. Ejub Ganic, and they told you about
3 him, that he was in charge on behalf of the Presidency of such
4 situations, if I understood you probably?
5 A. Yes, you did.
6 Q. Please read the paragraph starting with the words: "The
7 Presidency establishes a Crisis Staff ..."
8 A. I'm familiar with that.
9 Q. Slow down, please. The question is this: Do you know that
10 Mr. Ganic was, as it says here, the coordinator on behalf of the
11 Crisis Staff of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina for this kind of situations? Let's see if your answer
13 has been recorded.
14 And the question -- now your answer has not been recorded. Could
15 you please repeat your answer.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The answer could not be heard because the
17 speakers were overlapping again.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zepinic, we never heard your answer to the
19 question that was put to you. Did you know about Ganic's role?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was aware of the fact that
21 Mr. Ganic had a been appointed as the coordinator on behalf of the
22 Crisis Staff of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Thank you, sir. And
24 again to both counsels, please be careful not to overlap.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. My question with this regard is as follows. Your attempts to
2 find him that day failed, although he was supposedly in charge of such
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Very well. And now I would like to move on to a different topic,
6 the one that started your examination-in-chief. Let's first go to a
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have just been suggested to ask
9 you what day was it when you were looking for him, the day when the
10 barricades were erected.
11 A. Yes, I was looking for him on the day when the barricades had
12 been erected, but I failed. He arrived at the Presidency on the
13 following day, and at my proposal he was removed as the coordinator on
14 behalf of the Crisis Staff of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Cvijetic, can you
17 explain to us the relevance of this.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am dealing with
19 the topics raised during the examination-in-chief.
20 During the examination-in-chief, he took some time talking about
21 the barricades and his roles in dealing with the situation, and he also
22 told us who he had called and what the reactions were on behalf of those
23 who he had called. And within that context, he said that he was also
24 referred to Mr. Ganic and that Mr. Ganic played a certain role when it
25 came to dealing with such situations. I only showed him a document and
1 asked him to confirm that that was, indeed, the case.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: But he did confirm that during his
3 examination-in-chief, did he not?
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes. But he did not confirm nor
5 was he ever asked what his official role had been, and I established that
6 through this document, and the witness confirmed what the role of
7 Mr. Ganic was.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yeah, exactly.
10 Mr. Cvijetic, how is that relevant?
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It was the Crisis Staff of the
12 Presidency, which dates back to September 1991, Your Honours. And the
13 main task of the coordinator of that Crisis Staff was what the witness
14 was talking about at great length. And that Crisis Staff and that
15 coordinator did not deliver, they did not perform their duty, as has been
16 confirmed by the witness. And which complements our thesis that
17 Crisis Staffs existed and functioned even before the Serbian Democratic
18 Party established them.
19 MS. KORNER: I think there is a misunderstanding here. This was
20 a discussion about the SDS
21 with whatever Mr. Cvijetic thinks it was, in-chief anyhow.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is up to you be
23 the judge of that. We have our own thesis, and we want to support it
24 because we believe that it is relevant to establish when Crisis Staffs
25 were first established as organisations and forms of functioning. We
1 have proved that they existed in September 1991 and witness confirmed
2 their existence, and he also shed light on the function and role of
3 Mr. Ejub Ganic at the time. And this is exactly what we have done.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would appreciate if you simply could put the
5 questions relating to these matters to the witness head on.
6 But, in any case, let's move on.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 Q. Mr. Zepinic, let's first see this piece of regulation, 1D004042.
9 This is a Law on General People's Defence [as interpreted], which is a
10 topic which you already discussed in the examination-in-chief.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 61 in the
12 English version of the document.
13 Q. And in your binder, sir, it will be under tab 3.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Just an intervention of transcript, Your Honours.
15 83, line 17, it is All People's Defence. I believe that is what
16 Mr. Cvijetic's ...
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In the Serbian version, we are on Article 91, and the English
19 version we are on page 61. We're looking for Article 91.
20 What matters is to have the English version, and the two of us
21 speak Serbian so we can make do.
22 Can you please open your B/C/S version on page 3 where you will
23 find Article 91 -- or, rather, the document is under tab 3. Look for
24 Article 91. Do you have it? Have you got it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Yes. We're dealing with armed forces:
2 "The armed force make up a single entity and are comprised of a
3 Yugoslav People's Army and the Territorial Defence."
4 Would you agree with me that this is the shortest possible and
5 the simplest definition of the armed forces within the system of All
6 People's Defence; is that correct?
7 A. I'm not a legal expert, so I can't say either yes or no. This is
8 the 1982 law, as far as I know. I don't know whether there were any
9 amendments or new laws after that, I wouldn't know.
10 Q. We're dealing with the federal law which was applied in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Can we agree on that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that in the legal definition
14 of the armed forces, the police or the Ministry of the Interior does not
15 feature as an integral part of the armed forces; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, yes, you're right, yes, I agree with you. I apologise.
17 Q. And now let's move to page 67 in the English version.
18 And for you, sir, could you please turn your pages to
19 Article 104. 104.
20 Do you see this Article 104, in it does envisage a possibility to
21 engage police forces in combat. But if that the case, the police forces
22 are resubordinated to the military commander to whose area they are
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You have already explained to us -- that to us during your
1 examination-in-chief. This means that the competent commander of a corps
2 can issue a written order or a -- an oral order in threat of war and ask
3 for a certain number of police officers to be placed at his disposal. Is
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. At the moment when they arrive in the area of his responsibility,
7 their official competencies of civilian police officers are abolished.
8 They become part of the military bodies. They are resubordinated to a
9 military commander, and they are held responsible just like any other
10 member of the military.
11 Am I right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if that happens your authority over them ceases to exist?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You have to say no.
16 Could you please repeat your answer? And let me repeat my
17 question. Do you still have any authority over that group of policemen
18 in a situation like that?
19 A. No.
20 Q. In such a situation --
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think we have been through this a number of
22 times, Mr. Cvijetic.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will then continue
24 with my following question, because the witness was asked about the
25 circumstances in the examination-in-chief. Let me just verify that,
1 nothing more. Here is a high-ranking police officer, Your Honours, we
2 will not have the opportunity or indeed the need to ask anybody of a
3 lower rank.
4 Q. So my final question about this Article --
5 A. [In English] I have just one intervention, sorry. "Here is a
6 high-ranking police officer." I told you already I wasn't police
7 officer, Mr. Cvijetic.
8 Q. Okay. So if in such a situation when they are resubordinated,
9 I'm speaking about former civilian police officers, if they commit a war
10 crime or any crime, they are then prosecuted before a military tribunal.
11 Is that correct?
12 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
13 Q. Now your answer has been recorded. It's okay.
14 Why have I brought up this law?
15 On pages 114 and 115 of the English version, more specifically,
16 Article 207 ...
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 114, 115, so the Article is 207.
19 Q. Have you read Article 207 in the meantime, sir?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You know this from the system, Mr. Zepinic. It stipulates that
22 all -- everybody in the country is obliged to make -- to prepare for
23 defence, make plans and even establish staffs, et cetera.
24 These preparations comprised all institutions in the state,
25 including the MUP. Is that correct?
1 A. Based on the 1982 act, yes, that is correct.
2 Q. Then I will show you some documents signed by you to check their
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see documents
5 1D159, please.
6 Q. In your binder, that is number 6.
7 Mr. Zepinic, take a look at this document. Can you recognise one
8 of your own documents? Do you just confirm that this is a practical
9 implementation of what we have just been talking about?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Well, then tell me.
12 A. You, Mr. Cvijetic, are trying to apply the 1982 act to the
13 newly-created circumstances after the multi-party elections held in 1990.
14 This law that you have placed in front of me was passed in a
15 country with a single-party system which was ruled by the League of
16 Communists. At the time when I was in authority, there was a coalition
17 of ethnic parties, based on the decision of the Assemblies of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, taken in
19 January 1991, that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, political pluralism should be
21 Q. Just a minute.
22 A. Let me finish.
23 Q. But my sweep wasn't so broad.
24 A. [In English] Mr. Cvijetic. Your Honour. Because you are trying
25 to implement in something what is totally inadequate regarding document
1 in time when we had totally different political situation than on time
2 that political party formed government, Presidency, and cabinet.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if it's your permission, I will
4 explain further. You asking me here about organisation. Of military
5 organisation -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 Mr. Zepinic, please.
8 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... [No interpretation]
9 [Interpretation] You're asking me about the conditions in an
10 imminent threat of war, a state of war, in a crisis, and I ask you who in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina decided that there was an imminent threat of war.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Just one question. Is this your document?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Now that you are unwilling to comment it, it has been
16 exhibited already. Let's continue.
17 Do you recognise the following document, document number 7 --
18 well, but let's not go into this.
19 Let me just, by way of finishing, ask you in general about the
20 situation. The defence preparations of the organs of the -- in the
21 interior also include drafting plans, the establishing of staffs, but
22 exclusively for the carrying out of police duties in the newly arisen,
23 more difficult conditions.
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Well, then I don't know what are we disagreeing about.
1 A. We disagree about the fact that nobody ever proclaimed the state
2 of crisis or imminent threat of war or the state of war in
4 Q. Mr. Zepinic, I'm referring to the obligation that even in peace
5 such preparations must be conducted. Am I right?
6 A. Yes, you're right there.
7 Q. You will agree with me when I say that, to that end, and because
8 of the expected worsening of the security situation and operational staff
9 can be established that will assist the minister in the implementation of
10 his task in these new aggravated the circumstances.
11 A. I cannot reply with any degree of certainty that was indeed the
12 case. But the ministry or -- minister or his office were duty-bound to
13 establish a team that would vouch, say, the functioning of the Ministry
14 of the Interior.
15 Q. You said team or staff; right?
16 A. I'm not sure. Well, we can use such or terms or other.
17 Q. To confirm what we were saying, let us see document 1D030526.
18 And you can find it at number 13.
19 Let us just wait for the English version to appear. This is a
20 document which wasn't signed by you but, rather, Mr. Avdo Hebib as the
21 commander or the head of the staff. And he informs the other units that
22 such an operation staff has been established. Is this a confirmation of
23 what we have just spoken about?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender
1 this document into evidence.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: For what purpose exactly, Mr. Cvijetic?
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This document confirms the
4 conversation and the topic Mr. Zepinic and I discussed about the
5 existence of an operational staff within the Ministry of the Interior in
6 extraordinary circumstances, or in a crisis.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but we disagree. The
8 staff was established because the security situation had worsened.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well. Okay.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The witness has identified the
12 document, and I believe it is relevant.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me just remind you of the date
14 of the document. It is dated 6 April 1992.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Well, yes, that is what it says.
17 A. Your witness resigned a few days earlier.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL
20 admitted. But wouldn't we just be adding paper?
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We haven't had
22 any document of this type so far, but I believe it is relevant for the
23 positions of the Defence. It is relevant for us, and I believe it can
24 assist the Trial Chamber to clarify some issues.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, as usual, we're not trying to
2 prevent you from tendering evidence to us. On the contrary. But we need
3 have to have a clear understanding of just how this will assist the
4 Defence case, and thereby how it is relevant to this Trial Chamber. And
5 I'm not sure I understand it fully.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, then we should
7 discuss that in the absence of the witness. I can explain to you why it
8 is relevant to us, but this will take some time, I am afraid.
9 I am willing to provide you an answer but in the absence of the
11 JUDGE HALL
12 what the -- what could happen is that the witness could be excused a
13 little ahead of us, and you could briefly explain how this is relevant.
14 Mr. Zepinic, we will be taking a break shortly, and we would
15 resume at 2.30 because we have an extended session today in order to
16 complete your testimony. But the Court is not rising immediately so the
17 usher will escort you from the courtroom at this moment.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 JUDGE HALL
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are merely
23 opposing what the OTP put forward about the character of the order issued
24 by Mr. Stanisic. I believe it is -- it was dated the 15th of May. In
25 which he deals with the same topic in the same way the MUP of the
1 Socialist Republic of BiH dealt with it because it is his legal
2 obligation to do so. And here we see that this is done at this level
4 The OTP characterised this act of Mr. Stanisic in one way, and we
5 are opposing it by claiming that this is merely a uniform application of
6 the law, and we have shown a document to prove our point. No more than
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL
10 proposition have a view on this?
11 MS. KORNER: For the moment I don't have faintest idea of what
12 document that Stanisic signed Mr. Cvijetic is talking about. So if he
13 would like to give us the number, that would help.
14 I don't believe when he says, We characterised it in a way,
15 without knowing what the document is, I can't say how he characterised
16 what. It may well be it's simply a document we put in to show the
17 progression of Mr. Stanisic.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be brief.
19 It is Exhibit 1D46 from the 65 ter list. It's an order issued by
20 Mr. Stanisic. About the establishment of the staff ... 1D46.
21 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Yes. I've had a look at
22 the document. I don't think we characterised it in any way other than it
23 shows the operation of the Serbian MUP once there was the split.
24 Apparently it went in through -- I can't remember, one of the witnesses.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is very simple.
1 A parallel should be drawn between these two documents, and you will
2 arrive at your own conclusions.
3 And based on this order issued by Mr. Stanisic, the OTP argues
4 that he, thus, used police forces for wartime purposes.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D177, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.51 p.m.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 --- On resuming at 2.39 p.m.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Could we now please have document 1D030505 on the screen, please.
15 Q. Mr. Zepinic, for your reference, it is at number -- at tab 8 in
16 the binder. Let us just wait for it to appear on the screen.
17 Can you just confirm if this is a document issued by you?
18 A. Probably it is.
19 Q. My -- I apologise, did the Judge want to say anything?
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, I think the witness said that it was
21 probably by him, and we haven't seen the signature. At least I haven't.
22 So ...
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us, please, scroll down to see
24 Mr. Zepinic's signature.
25 A. I also cannot see my signature. That's why I said probably.
1 Q. Well, please then read the content and then you will be able to
2 make your on conclusion.
3 A. Yes. Please give me a minute.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the bottom in English?
5 But it's on the second page, all the way down.
6 The English version seems to have one more page. This is it.
7 Q. Mr. Zepinic, have you read the document?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could it be yours?
10 A. Yes, it could.
11 Q. Could we just briefly comment in one sentence that it deals with
12 the manning of the wartime organisation of the MUP.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And all in the -- in the context of what we spoke about earlier.
15 A. Yes. But let us be precise, in the overall framework of the
16 worsened security situation in the Republic.
17 Q. Yes, all right, I agree.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender
19 this into evidence as the witness has identified the document.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 1D178.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Could we now please
23 the following document, 1D030510.
24 Q. It's at tab 9, Mr. Zepinic.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's just see the English
1 version. Please scroll all the way down so that we may see the
2 signature. We'll obviously have to turn the page in the English version.
3 Please go all the way to the signature in the English version.
4 Q. Mr. Zepinic, you had the opportunity to read the content?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is your answer the same?
7 A. Yes, there is no signature, but I fully agree with the content.
8 Q. You merely speak about increased measures or heightened measures?
9 A. It is duty shifts of executive officers.
10 Q. All right, Mr. Zepinic.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I also seek to tender this
12 document into evidence, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic. For this document and
14 the previous document, I'm unsure of what to make of the contents. The
15 previous documents, if I was able to grasp the contents of it, because it
16 was just on the screen for a very short moment, and I was rushing through
17 it, that previous document seemed to suggest that the witness had
18 insisted that the ethnic composition of the organisation of the MUP in
19 wartime reflected the actual composition of the ethnic groups in the
20 country. So that was one thing.
21 And then this document tends to do what exactly? But for both
22 documents, I'm unsure what to make of it. Why is it important to your
23 case to have the witness testify that he was seeking to maintain a
24 wartime organisation that reflected the ethnic organisation of the -- of
25 the population as such, rather, I suppose, than being just ethnically
1 Serb, or Muslim, or Croat?
2 What is the point you want to show? I simply -- I'm unsure about
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are dealing with
5 the measures taken by the MUP under conditions of worsen -- the worsened
6 security situation as the witness said. It is true that this is what it
7 says. But it also says that the wartime organisation is being manned.
8 And the third document I'm about to show speaks about the need to issue
9 long-barrelled weapons to the reserve police. So I'm referring to the
10 measures taken in this situation, based on the plans we discussed with
11 the witness.
12 So I'm not taking a single sentence out of context, I'm looking
13 at the document as a whole and placing it into the context about which we
14 are speaking with the witness.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: But -- thanks, Mr. Cvijetic. What's the story
16 that you want to tell here, or that you wouldn't to elicit from the
17 witness? What is the understanding of the events that took place in the
18 fall of 1991 and the early months of 1992 that you want this witness to
19 give to the Chamber?
20 I'm asking because I -- I don't understand it. I don't see it
21 clearly from the documents that you put to us.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no other
23 explanation but the one to -- but the conclusion to which arrived at by
24 speaking with the witness. I'm showing authentic documents, drafted by
25 the witness, which he has confirmed, and we are placing them into the
1 context that has been discussed, about the implementation of plans and
2 measures in the extraordinary circumstances that occurred.
3 We consider that relevant because we have in front of us a
4 witness who authored these documents. We will attribute a certain
5 importance to them from the point of view of the Defence, and you will do
6 so from the viewpoint of the Trial Chamber.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if it assists, we do not understand the
8 relevance either.
9 We do not dispute that with the war in Croatia which began around
10 this time, there were security concerns, particularly on the border
11 areas, as you've heard, in Banja Luka.
12 As far as we're concerned what the Prosecution is saying about
13 those period of months in 1991 and has adduced through this witness is
14 that there was build up to the split in the MUP.
15 So, for the rest of it, we take no point on this. We don't
16 object to the documents, but we don't see the relevance either.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think that puts very well the concerns that I
18 have too. We know that the MUP was split up. We could see it coming.
19 We've been hearing evidence from this witness already on the fact that
20 this is what was -- was coming.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm laying a
22 foundation for the questions about the division of the MUP. And the
23 relevance of this document lies more in the context of what we were
24 speaking about, the conduct of the MUP in extraordinary situations.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And all that is to be seen in the
2 paragraph -- in the context of paragraph 76.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 JUDGE HALL
6 agrees that the documents may be admitted, but we -- this context which
7 you have represented, the -- exists for the relevance of these documents,
8 we will expect you to show.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document will become
10 Exhibit 1D179.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can assist you
12 and, thus, also confirm that you took a correct decision.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the latter part of
14 his sentence.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, the interpreter needs you to repeat
17 the latter part of your sentence.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So I just wanted to show once more
19 that you took the correct decision. What we have just tendered, I
20 connect with paragraph 6 of the pre-trial brief of the OTP.
21 So can you check it. 76.
22 Q. Mr. Zepinic, let me ask you generally, because there are -- some
23 documents have already been tendered concerning this, whether you had
24 information that in the Herzegovina the Croatian Community of
25 Herceg-Bosna had been established. How did you come by this information,
1 if you did?
2 A. I cannot reply to this question because I really don't remember
3 when the organisation of Herceg-Bosna was established. But we did have
4 some security information, some intelligence that in Western Herzegovina,
5 there were some armed and masked persons, that they been observed wearing
6 uniforms from the neighbouring Croatia.
7 The Presidency was informed of that, and it decided that
8 Mr. Ejub Ganic as the coordinator of the Crisis Staff, visit some
9 municipalities in the west of Herzegovina and report to the Presidency
10 about his findings.
11 Q. Thank you. I will not show you any documents. I will merely put
12 to you that we have tendered documents about the official establishment
13 of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that it was on the 18th of
14 November. But my question to you is the following. Do you allow for the
15 possibility that it was actually in fact established immediately after
16 the multi-party elections in 1991? Do you have information from that
18 A. I frankly cannot remember, but I know that the area of
19 Western Herzegovina was, as it were, separate or functioned independently
20 from the decisions made by the cabinet of Bosnia-Herzegovina, at least in
21 some municipalities.
22 Q. All right. Then I will show you one document with regard to
23 this, and that's 1D144.
24 It's number 17 in your binder, sir.
25 Mr. Zepinic, let me point you to the letterhead where it says
1 Croatian Defence Council and the date is the 1st of June 1990.
2 Did you have information about the establishing of armed units of
3 the Croatian Community, under this name, Croatian Defence Council?
4 A. No, we didn't have such information.
5 Q. Did you ever find out subsequently that there was a Croatian
6 Defence Council?
7 A. I would say that, in early 1992, we learned about this. Because
8 Mr. Ganic, who was a member of the Presidency at a session of that
9 Presidency, reported about that, because he had gone there as the
10 coordinator of the Crisis Staff. He said that our information was false
11 and that we had him go there for no reason.
12 Q. Do you think that he was being sincere?
13 A. Well, if you look it up, you will find what I put to him.
14 Respectlessly I said to him that he should have taken a pair of glasses
15 with him when he went there.
16 Q. All right. Let us take a look at the following document.
17 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, why should we
18 take a look at the following document which he hasn't seen and which he
19 knows nothing about. Sorry. But, Your Honours, I'm concerned now about
20 timing as well.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't know which document
22 Ms. Korner is referring to. It was interpreted to me, Why should we look
23 at the following document, and I haven't even shown the document yet.
24 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I thought we were -- I'm
25 that's my fault. I thought we were referring to the document on the
1 screen undated, from somebody called -- or unsigned, undated.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We have finished with this
3 document, and the document is dated only at -- to see the date you have
4 to scroll down. Or up.
5 Let's see the upper part, which probably bears the date. The
6 original. Here it is.
7 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I think, Your Honours, we
8 went through this last time. I think this document has apparently
9 already been exhibited. That's why I haven't got in my bundle either.
10 Anyhow, I don't want to take up more time, so if we're moving, we're
11 moving on.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Can we now take a look
13 at the next document, 1D030528.
14 Q. This is your tab 18, Mr. Zepinic.
15 Mr. Zepinic, we see the date, 16 January 1992. It is a
16 memorandum of the army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from a
17 period when the Yugoslav People's Army still existed, at least
18 officially, formally.
19 Do you have knowledge as to when the armed forces of the BH were
20 formed or perhaps paramilitaries such as the Patriotic League and the
21 Green Berets?
22 A. I didn't see this at the time. Of course if I had seen the
23 document contemporaneously or we would taken the necessary legal steps, I
24 don't have information that the army of the Republic of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina was established in January 1992.
1 This is, I would say, very ...
2 Q. I'm sorry, you will have to repeat, but slowly.
3 A. This is the first time I see this document. If anyone from our
4 service had that document and made it available to the ministry, I
5 guarantee to you that the ministry would have taken the necessary legal
6 steps against everything that is suggested in the document, which was
7 contrary to the law prevailing in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 As for the establishment of the army of the Republic of Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina, I don't know when it was established. I only know that
10 formally it was set up after the war broke out.
11 If you want a comment from me, I find it very odd that, on this
12 memorandum we see this coat of arms with shields. At that time the coat
13 of arms with lilies was still in place, was still used. And I don't
14 think the whole town of Stolac could provide a whole brigade, let alone
15 made up only of Muslims.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would like this only MFI'd. I
17 don't think the requirements are met for admission through this witness.
18 Because --
19 JUDGE HALL
21 MS. KORNER: I'm objecting to this document altogether, and I
22 would like to know, please, exactly where it comes from. And I don't
23 want a response such as, "We think from the centre for cooperation with
24 The Hague." I want exact chapter and verse, please. And I, at the
25 moment, certainly object to its admission.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you know that we
2 proposed 1500 documents. I don't know the exact provenance of this one,
3 but we will run checks and respond to the Prosecutor.
4 We found a memorandum with such stamps from dates earlier than
5 this one, so it -- it -- that is not in question.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 further, so we drop this and you move on.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If that is your decision, we shall
9 move on.
10 Q. Mr. Zepinic, let's try to clear up something about the previous
12 Do you know the names of the people who signed it?
13 A. No. But I'm looking at it. The stamp is Stolac, and in the
14 header it says Mostar.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will accept the decision of the
16 Trial Chamber to link this up with other documents on the subject, and
17 then we'll see later.
18 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No, no, Your Honour. To
19 be quite clear, I would like an answer, not in the near future, but at
20 the latest tomorrow, as to where this document actually comes from. And
21 any other documents that you say go with it.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the next break,
24 we will have it ready.
25 May I move on?
1 JUDGE HALL
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Zepinic, I'd like to ask you this. Did you, at the Ministry
4 of the Interior, have any information that the Party of Democratic Action
5 was sending to Croatia men who were - how shall I put it? - interested in
6 getting training for special forces.
7 You can start now.
8 A. Yes, we had information that people from Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 were applying at an open competition at the Ministry of the Interior of
10 Croatia for training slots in a newly opened training centre for MUP
11 personnel, and we did not have the authority to prevent them from going.
12 How exactly it was organised, whether it was through the SDA or not, I
13 don't know. I know that once, Mr. Zupljanin informed me that we had
14 stopped two buses in the territory of Krajina, and one of the people on
15 the buses was the Deputy Chief of department in the MUP, and the
16 applicants, the trainees, were from Western Herzegovina. They were going
17 for training in Croatia. But I have to say again, we had no legal
18 authority to prevent them from going. We had several cases when we
19 intervened because some of those men, coming back after the training,
20 wanted jobs in our ministry, but we had to intervene and prevent it,
21 because this training they had gone through in Croatia, that did not go
22 through any cooperation between the MUP of Croatia and -- and our MUP.
23 It had nothing to do with us.
24 Q. You've already anticipated my next question, whether the ministry
25 was backing this. And the answer is?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now, do you think it's legal for a national party to send
3 candidates for such training?
4 A. I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I have to say about
5 national or non-national.
6 Q. Did you have information that the SDA is also organising transit
7 for candidates from Sandzak to -- to Croatia? From Sandzak and Kosovo to
9 Could you please repeat your answer.
10 A. Yes, we had such information, because after the provincial MUP of
11 Kosovo was disbanded, most of their personnel found employment in the MUP
12 of Croatia.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 Mr. Zepinic, in these introductory documents, I wanted to give
15 some background and recreate that atmosphere which was leading up to the
16 crisis. How did you get information that the outcome of the Lisbon
17 negotiations between Alija Izetbegovic and Dr. Karadzic was leading to
18 the -- to an ethnic division of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also a
19 division in the Ministry of the Interior?
20 Wait a second before you answer.
21 A. As for the nature of the political negotiations in Lisbon that
22 were taking place under the aegis of Mr. Cutileiro, I don't know. But
23 what was interesting for me was to know that the two political leaders in
24 the presence of international representatives suggested as a solution the
25 creation of ministries of -- mono-ethnic Ministries of the Interior and a
1 council consisting of nine members, including three members from each
2 ethnic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to coordinate those national
3 ministries of the interior.
4 Q. In such an atmosphere, I have the impression that you convened
5 that meeting with your colleagues around the 1st of April, and that you
6 even said so, for the record, one of these days, if, for no other purpose
7 than to say good-bye to each other, to say farewell?
8 A. No, I'm afraid you're a little off on your time.
9 That happened in the beginning of January in 1992, and my last,
10 meeting with my associates was on the 3rd of April, when the situation
11 was pretty clear, and it was quite obvious that my struggle against
12 nationalism in Bosnia-Herzegovina and among my colleagues was lost. I
13 told my colleagues that it was the last collegium meeting I'm convening,
14 and I asked them not to play any role that would contribute to the
15 conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, not to play any personal role in
16 that, and especially not to contribute between any conflict between
17 members of the Ministry of the Interior on ethnic grounds. It was a very
18 emotional meeting, my last with my colleagues, and I'm very sorry to have
19 been proven right. It was followed by raging conflict in Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, things I don't need to repeat in this courtroom.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. When you said I was a bit off on the time, I actually meant that
24 in January, at least you think in January, you had information about the
25 outcome of the negotiations.
1 A. No I don't think. I know that it was in the beginning of
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You mean the negotiations in Lisbon, with Mr. Cutileiro?
6 And your answer hasn't been recorded again. Could you please
7 repeat it.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I will now venture a motivation that drove you at that meeting.
10 You were saying something like, If we really have to split, then
11 let us split as -- as colleagues.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. A few days later, there was a meeting on the premises of the
14 assembly, at the office of Mr. Krajisnik [realtime transcript read in
15 error "Karadzic"]. You've mentioned this meeting before.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The assembly [as interpreted] of Mr. Krajisnik, not Karadzic.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can we agree about the date, the 4th of April, 1992?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I know it's Monday, and I believe
22 everybody is tired, but it is the office of Mr. Krajisnik. Not the
23 assembly of Karadzic, or assembly of Krajisnik or Karadzic, so, thank
25 JUDGE HALL
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Now, it is a unit of the Special Police that provides security
3 and guards the ministry, the post office, all government buildings, as
4 well as the assembly; correct?
5 A. We would not have enough members of the Special Police to do all
7 Q. What about the assembly and the Presidency and the most important
9 A. Yes, there were members of the special unit. But not only them,
10 they were not the only ones who exclusively provided security.
11 Q. Bringing weapons into such buildings was forbidden.
12 A. For whom? You mean authorised -- unauthorized persons? Weapons
13 could be brought in -- into the buildings only by those who were guarding
14 inside or outside, who were on duty.
15 Q. The debate was rather heated at that meeting, and we had your
16 account of it. It was offered to you that you could become a member of
17 the ministry, and that was the day you resigned; correct?
18 A. I think Mr. Zecevic wanted to tell you something.
19 No, nobody offered me anything, and, of course, if they did, I
20 would have refused.
21 Q. That's the day you signed your letter of resignation.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Isn't it a bit contradictory, Mr. Zepinic, that at a meeting like
24 that, a meeting of that level, you should understand that kind of
25 rhetoric as a serious threat with murder?
1 A. You mean what Mr. Stanisic said?
2 Q. I'll ask you a specific question. I'll give you his version of
3 the event.
4 Did members of the special unit, Repija and Maric, come in to
5 that room as your escorts or whatever?
6 A. No.
7 Q. When did they come in?
8 A. Later, after I came into the room where Mr. Krajisnik and the
9 other SDS
10 seriously when he said that he would kill me, I said, in any case, Should
11 I go to the basement if that is going to happen? Rather than staying
12 here. Now whether he was serious or not, that's not my job to interpret.
13 Q. But you remember talking about Repija, the special policeman, he
14 was quite devoted to you, and he ripped his official ID card, and he told
15 you that you are the only one who could command him.
16 A. Yes, I remember.
17 Q. All right. And do you know that Mr. Repija, the next day,
18 accepted to be placed under the command of Mr. Karisik, and he did go to
20 A. I don't know about that. But he visited me in jail at Jahorina
21 together with Dusko Jevic and another person. Now what the purpose of
22 that visit was, I don't know.
23 Q. Just briefly, did he tell you that he had gone into Vrace?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you have information that, as he was entering Vrace, he was
2 A. I don't know about him being wounded. I know that Dusko Jevic
3 was wounded.
4 Q. Did you have information that, as they were entering Vrace, the
5 Special Police unit was shot at from surrounding buildings by the
6 Green Berets and two of them were killed?
7 A. I don't know, Mr. Cvijetic. I'm telling you, because I wasn't
9 Q. I understood you only heard about it.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And I have only one more issue to clear up about the way you left
12 Republika Srpska.
13 Sorry, just before one question before that.
14 Do you have information that the same evening, before Vrace, on
15 the 4th, after that meeting, that the Green Berets occupied several
16 public security stations in Sarajevo and in the Novo Sarajevo SJB they
17 killed one Serb policeman?
18 A. Mr. Petrovic.
19 Q. Yes, Petrovic. Thank you.
20 Last Friday, on page 5841 of the transcript, when you were told
21 that the vice premier in November, Mr. Trbojevic, claimed that you had
22 been working in military security from September 1992, you said that was
23 not true, and you did not know where Trbojevic got that information. Do
24 you remember saying that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Just repeat your previous answer. Do you remember this?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Then you said you spent some time in Kula prison, after which you
4 were transferred to a military jail in Lukavica, where from you escaped
5 in November 1992; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I hope this is going to be my last question.
8 Isn't it true that you really worked at the command of the
9 Romanija Infantry Corps and shared an office with one Milidrag [phoen]
10 and Colonel Lugonja, security officers of the Army of the Republika
12 A. Now I really have to take a while to answer this question because
13 you are really provocative.
14 Q. No, please answer. This is not a question that one can answer
15 with a yes or no.
16 A. Mr. Cvijetic, in the military -- please, I listened to you, and I
17 didn't interrupt. Now please let me answer.
18 Q. You don't know the rules of cross-examination.
19 A. I know the rules of risking my own life, Mr. Cvijetic.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 record the question and the answer. Secondly, as a matter of courtesy,
22 Mr. Cvijetic, having asked the question, please allow the witness to
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was transferred, the
25 investigation was led by Mr. Milidrag and by Captain Bukva. And his last
1 name is very telling because his character is exactly like his name.
2 After a few days, Colonel Marko Lugonja arrived. Whether on
3 purpose or by chance, I was in a room and on the very cot where
4 Alija Izetbegovic when he was taken there from the airport.
5 On one occasion Mr. Lugonja asked me in accordance with a
6 dispatch from the minister of People's Defence, my friend
7 General Bulatovic and also General Panic, which they sent to
8 General Mladic, that, at Grbavica a Muslim be found who was one of the
9 chiefs of department in the Ministry of the Interior of Yugoslavia.
10 Nobody dared go Grabovica to find him, so Mr. Lugonja asked me to do the
11 job. They gave me a uniform with some rank and insignia, I don't know
12 whether they were those of Lieutenant Colonel. Zoran Kos drove because
13 was the prison warden. We went to Grabovica, we picked that up that man,
14 and I fulfilled my part of the agreement. Kos and I sat in the front,
15 and that man and his wife were sitting in the rear.
16 I was recognised or, rather, we were recognised, and people were
17 asking questions, but anyway we transferred the man to Han Pijesak and
18 handed him over to units that were supposed to take him to Belgrade. And
19 I returned to jail, Mr. Cvijetic.
20 Q. I listened carefully to your answer. I'll now ask my final
21 question, and we will be tendering more evidence.
22 Let me ask you: Is it true that the very same officer,
23 Mr. Lugonja gave you a travel document to go to Nis to the military
24 hospital at that time to have your kidneys examined, but you never
25 returned from there, but instead left for Australia. Can you provide
1 with us with a yes or no answer?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Thank you, Your Honours. No further questions.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, with some hesitation I return to
5 the question of putting your case. Mr. Cvijetic said a few moments ago,
6 I will now put to you what Mr. Stanisic says happened, that nothing was
8 So I am taking it that it is accepted that during the course of
9 the resignation by Dr. Zepinic, Stanisic arrived, was there, waved a gun
10 and threatened to kill him. Now, I don't know whether Your Honours think
11 is that is important enough to put a case, if Stanisic's case is
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, maybe if -- if the ruling would be
14 that we need to ask additional questions, or maybe my learned friend will
15 re-direct the witness, maybe the witness should be excused while we are
16 discussing this issue.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm not seeking to re-direct the
18 witness. I am saying that, as it has not been challenged, it has not
19 been suggested that Mr. Zepinic is wrong or lying about that, it is
20 accepted by Mico Stanisic that that is what happened.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the witness answered that, according
22 to his answer today, nobody was allowed to carry a gun in the -- in the
23 -- in the building of the Presidency, except if he was on duty outside or
24 inside, guarding it.
25 Therefore, the part of his statement before that anybody,
1 including Mico Stanisic, was waving gun at him obviously is contradicted
2 with his answer today.
3 So, therefore, I -- I mean, I see Ms. Korner laughing, but I
4 don't -- I don't think that is appropriate at all.
5 I believe the witness gave that answer. The second thing he
6 said, I'm not sure if he meant seriously that he wanted to kill me, or if
7 it was just a figure of speech. I don't think that it deserves any
8 further cross-examination or putting of the case from the Defence. Or
9 maybe I am wrong.
10 But anyhow, as I have stated this before the witness now, we
11 cannot -- we cannot explore this situation anymore with the witness.
12 Thank you.
13 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I'm perfectly happy for the
14 witness to be asked to leave court while we explore this with a little
15 more depth.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, but ...
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL
19 Ms. Korner?
20 MS. KORNER: Well, I'm asking for a ruling.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 to us that what are you asking the Chamber to do would be, at best,
23 premature. The evidence was led -- this bit of evidence and it is a
24 replication of the discussion we had today. You led the evidence from
25 the witness; the witness gave you answers. The other side chose not go
1 down that road. It means that at the end -- when it comes time to make
2 your submissions as to what findings of fact the Chamber should make, you
3 will no doubt be able to powerfully put to the Chamber what you have just
4 suggested. But I don't see that the Chamber can make any ruling at this
5 stage, because it would involve the Chamber making findings before the
6 evidence is closed.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that is simply not right. Your Honour,
8 may I suggest that Your Honours read the decision. Your Honours, it is
9 it absolutely standard that a witness -- if it is suggested that a
10 witness is mistaken or lying, then that must be put to the witness. It
11 is not sufficient for the Defence to sit there and wait and do nothing.
12 It is an obligation under the Rules.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: You draw the procedural advantage from that.
14 That's it.
15 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. What do you mean the
16 procedural advantage?
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: You draw the procedural advantage that you gain
18 from the Defence not having raised the issue during -- during its
20 MS. KORNER: But Your Honour, I don't. I draw no procedural
21 advantage from this. With the greatest of respect, Your Honour, we
22 cannot ignore the Rules or, rather, the authority which is absolutely
23 clear. I'm having some difficulty in explaining, obviously, to you what
24 seems to me absolutely crystal clear, that where there is a dispute about
25 what a witness has said on something which Your Honours may consider
1 really quite important, then it has to be put to the witness. Part of it
2 is how the witness deals with it.
3 Your Honours, I'm sorry, I -- this is the second time today, but
4 it is absolutely clear from the authority, based on the Rules in this
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm sorry, is the translation over?
7 The duty of the Defence during cross-examination obviously is to
8 raise doubts about the evidence that was elicited from the Prosecution
9 during the examination-in-chief of the witnesses. That goes without
11 Now, if you're asking the Chamber to compel the Defence to put
12 questions to the witness which may be incriminating for the -- for the
13 accused, I think that the standard rule would be that we cannot compel
14 the Defence to elicit evidence that would be incriminating. And it would
15 be wrong to do so. Because, Ms. Korner, suppose -- if we go back to the
16 example that we had earlier this day, suppose we were to have the Defence
17 accept the evidence offered by this witness that it was, indeed,
18 Mr. Zupljanin who spoke on that intercept, then if it would then turn out
19 that during that intercept something was said which would clearly be
20 incriminating for Mr. Zupljanin; or, if not in this intercept, then the
21 next intercepts or the next intercepts, at some point, something was said
22 that clearly incriminated Mr. Zupljanin. In any one of those cases, I
23 think the Defence would be entitled to say, This is not our client, or
24 simply, We refrain from taking any position on it.
25 And I don't see how the Chamber can compel the Defence to take a
1 position on it. It's part of the game that they have the right to remain
3 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, "a game." This is simply not a game.
4 This is not -- the right to remain silent is not an absolute one.
5 Your Honours, may I respectfully suggest, I did sent a copy of
6 the decision to your legal officer before the break, and invited him to
7 give you a copy to read it. The right to silence is not an absolute one.
8 There is a right -- would Your Honour let me finish now, please. There
9 is an absolute obligation for a number of very good reasons why if an
10 important piece of evidence is disputed by the Defence, then the Defence
11 are required to put to the witness that he is wrong. I know that in
12 civil law the idea that a witness -- it should be put to a witness that
13 he is lying is anathema. It cannot be the same in Judge Hall's case.
14 But it is a requirement, a requirement that, if it is not -- what the
15 witness says is it not accepted, then the witness must be given the
16 opportunity to deal with it.
17 Your Honour, it is set out -- the reasons for it are set out very
18 clearly in the decision. And I don't think, obviously, Your Honours have
19 had an opportunity to read it.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner --
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just briefly, I think this is where my comment a
22 while ago about the procedural advantage that you gain becomes relevant.
23 Because if you are holding that Mr. Stanisic, at this meeting in
24 Mr. Krajisnik's office, indeed, did wave a gun at the witness, and the
25 Defence refuses to approach that issue, then what is left behind is the
1 witness's evidence, statement.
2 He said at one point that there was a gun involved, and at
3 another point, he said that no guns were allowed into the building.
4 That's the evidence we have, and we will give the weight to it that we
5 find appropriate at the time.
6 But to ask us now to rule on it, I think is --
7 MS. KORNER: But Your Honour, that is -- I'm sorry to tell that
8 you is the Rule. That is -- that was established, because this has
9 arisen four years ago, longer than that, eight years ago, virtually. I
10 think it is 2002, the decision.
11 Your Honours, the point is this. During the Defence case, the --
12 the defendant -- the accused Stanisic goes in the witness box and says
13 not true, never threatened him with a gun. Wholly and utterly untrue.
14 And what's more, I can call all this evidence to support that. If that
15 is it right, this must put be put to Dr. Zepinic now so that he can deal
16 with it. And you can see his reaction. That's the whole point.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, please may I -- oh, I'm so sorry, I
19 forgot this. Thank you very much.
20 Rule 90(H)(ii):
21 "In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give
22 evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel
23 shall put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom
24 that counsel appears which is in contradiction of the evidence given by
25 the witness."
1 JUDGE HALL
2 respect of two specific items. One is this purported identification of
3 Stanisic on the intercept, and the other one is -- sorry, Zupljanin on
4 the intercept. Zupljanin on the intercept. And this incident with
5 Stanisic waving a gun.
6 The -- these would be but two items of a number of items on which
7 the Prosecution is relying. If the Chamber is required to compel, as I
8 understand your argument to be, the Defence to address these items
9 because, as you put it, these are -- very important, probably pivotal -
10 pivotal is probably putting it too wide - to the Prosecution's case, how
11 is the exercise of identifying everything that would fall in this
12 category arrived at?
13 You obviously have identified these two items as one -- ones that
14 you would have excepted. And if I may say so, for myself, I, too, would
15 have expected the -- the Defence in their opportunity to cross-examine
16 the witness to have addressed. But I -- the application of the Rule that
17 -- that you cite, I am wholly unable to appreciate, Ms. Korner, how that
18 translates into putting the Chamber where it -- even if at agrees in
19 respect of these two items you have identified or any other item which
20 the -- in which it reasonably thought the Defence would have addressed
21 and they would have failed to do so, to require them before they close
22 their cross-examination to challenge the witnesses on these two items.
23 I remain -- it seems to me that if, notwithstanding the clear
24 obligation that the Defence has in the course of cross-examination to put
25 case, if it chooses to leave something there, then to borrow
1 Judge Harhoff's phrase, the procedural advantage seems to be clearly in
2 favour of the Prosecution.
3 MS. KORNER: But, Your Honour, this is the Rule. I'm asking for
4 application of the rule, if not, I am entitled to the assume that those
5 aspects of the case which I have identified as important and with which
6 Your Honours agree, not having been challenged are accepted by the
7 Defence. If they are not accepted by the Defence then the obligation is
8 to put it.
9 And that is the -- you're absolutely right. Your Honours can't
10 force the Defence to put a case. But then when I say that I'm taking it
11 those matters are accepted as accurate and truthful and that is it, the
12 Defence, if under no -- even under the rules are obliged to do that, and
13 I'm asking for application of the Rules, and otherwise we're entitled to
14 assume that there will not be any evidence called to contradict this.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 which you took some issue. But that is exactly what the result that I
17 had in mind. If the -- if the Defence chooses to take a certain course,
18 then the arguments which you are making now would -- I shouldn't
19 anticipate what ruling the Chamber would make, of course, but it would
20 seem to be that the Defence would have great difficulty answering
21 those --
22 MS. KORNER: But what is Your Honour -- I'm sorry, but with the
23 greatest respect, supposing Stanisic goes into the witness box and says,
24 Uh-uh, It's completely untrue what Dr. Zepinic said. I didn't have a
25 gun. You're not allowed to take a gun in there. Threatening him with
1 death, certainly not, I wouldn't do such a thing.
2 How is Your Honour going to treat that evidence? Your Honours.
3 When it's never been put to Dr. Zepinic that is he lying. Which is what
4 the effect of it would be? How is that evidence going to be treated?
5 Are you going ignore it?
6 I heard what Your Honour said, but I'm asking for the application
7 of the Rule.
8 If Your Honours say that the Rule 90(H)(ii) has no application in
9 this trial, well, then we will be -- we'll see where we go.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 return in -- we rising at 5.30, so we will resume in about a half-hour.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 3.53 p.m.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 --- On resuming at 4.30 p.m.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 refamiliarize ourselves with the reasoning of the Trial Chamber in the
18 Brdjanin decision to which counsel for the Prosecution helpfully drew our
19 attention, and we respectively adopt in its entirety the reasoning as
20 stated in that case, and as applied to the instant case, we repeat the
21 decision that we gave earlier, and are of the view that there is -- that
22 this -- the two issues to which Ms. Korner has drawn our attention do not
23 require the Chamber to make any ruling as to how the Defence should
24 approach those issues.
25 Thank you.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, then, Your Honours may I -- because this arose
2 both in the Boskoski case, I was informed over the adjournment and also
3 the Vukovar case, the name of the accused I have not forgotten, and there
4 Judge Parker presided in both cases when the issue arose, and it was made
5 clear that if the Defence subsequently called evidence which contradicted
6 what the witness had said but which had never been put to him, that
7 effectively, and I'm summarising, no weight would be attached to that
9 Are you Your Honours to prepared to say that is what you will be
11 JUDGE HALL
12 everything that we would have said, Ms. Korner, I think that the -- it
13 would be remarkable if when called upon, and I emphasis it is premature,
14 it would be remarkable, if when called upon, this Chamber were to take a
15 different course.
16 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we are talking now about the
18 application of the Rules, I must -- I must raise your attention to two
19 aspects of the -- of the decision of the Trial Chamber in Brdjanin. And
20 that is that the Trial Chamber found that certain flexibility in the
21 circumstances of trial an allowed. That is one thing. And the second is
22 the dissenting upon of O-Gon Kwon -- it's in Popovic, I'm sorry, it's in
23 Popovic, I'm terribly sorry. The decision in Popovic. And Judge Kwon in
24 his dissenting opinion stressed that the rule cannot be interpreted to
25 mean that where the cross-examining party fails to put to the witness the
1 nature of its case, it would be precluded from adducing contradictory
2 evidence later. Where the aim of the rule to be such, it should have
3 said so explicitly. And it doesn't. That's true.
4 I just wanted to raise the attention of the Trial Chamber to
6 JUDGE HALL
7 Ms. Korner, your re-examination of the witness in the 55 minutes
9 MS. KORNER: You can rest assured, Your Honour, I will not be
10 taking 55 minutes. In fact I have only got one matter I want to deal
12 I suppose I better put my earphones on.
13 Re-examination by Ms. Korner:
14 Q. You were asked by counsel for Zupljanin, Dr. Zepinic, a number of
15 questions about a man called Veljko Milinkovic. It is right, isn't it,
16 from what you know of him, that his group was called the Wolves of
18 You were asked -- do you want me to repeat the question? Okay.
19 You were asked a number of questions about a man called
20 Veljko Milinkovic. Were you aware that the group that he headed was
21 called the Wolves of Vucjak?
22 A. I didn't know of that name, but I was well-informed about all the
23 criminal activities of that gentleman and his group in the Banja Luka
25 Q. Yes. In that case, were you aware that he took part in the
1 takeover of the Kozara transmitter in August 1991?
2 A. I can't remember that specifically, but I know that the
3 information indicated that that group stopped vehicles, confiscated
4 goods, buses, evacuated passengers from buses. So it was a whole panoply
5 of criminal activities. But as for the specific question that you're
6 asking, I really can't remember that.
7 Q. Do you remember the takeover of the Kozara transmitter in
8 August of 1991?
9 A. No, unfortunately, not.
10 Q. The aim being to prevent people receiving programmes in that
11 area, which included --
12 MR. KRGOVIC: Asked and answered, Your Honour.
13 MS. KORNER: I'm seeing whether I can jog his memory,
14 Your Honour, a bit about it.
15 Q. The aim being to prevent people in the area of that transmitter,
16 which included Banja Luka, from receiving programmes from Sarajevo.
17 Does that help at all?
18 A. Again, I cannot answer that question. But I know that there were
19 efforts to transmit or hinder broadcast of a programme which was not, if
20 I may put it that way, in accordance with the ethnic composition of the
21 population. I know that there were some efforts in certain areas and I
22 suppose that there were efforts of that kind in that area as well.
23 Q. And just because there was a slight confusion as to what we were
24 talking about. But Veljko Milinkovic came from the municipality of
25 Prnjavor and was a Bosnian Serb, that's right, isn't, he wasn't a Serb
2 A. He is from that area. As for his ethnic background, I don't
3 know. But based on the information we heard here, it seems that he is an
4 ethnic Serb.
5 Q. And whatever the suggestion that we looked at in that report of
6 December 1991, he was not in fact ever prosecuted, was he?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection. It is leading, Your Honour. Just ask
8 question. Because in previous -- in previous question the witness
9 answered that he is not aware what has happened later. I mean, during my
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. Before -- you were still the deputy minister for police until the
13 4th of April?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you ever hear any report from Mr. Zupljanin or anybody else
16 that Mr. Milinkovic - hardly call him Mr. - that Veljko Milinkovic had
17 been prosecuted and imprisoned?
18 A. I remember that Mr. Zupljanin informed me about his arrest and
19 placing into custody. According to the then law of criminal procedure,
20 somebody could be kept in pre-trial detention for three days, following
21 which public prosecutor should have filed a criminal complaint.
22 I was informed that the public prosecutor did not accept the
23 commutation that was sent by the CSB
24 office in order to initiate the criminal proceedings.
25 Q. Were you aware that he and his group in fact were taken into the
1 1st Krajina Corps once the VRS had been formed and the 1st Krajina Corps
3 A. I don't know about that, because I was in detention at that time.
4 Q. And so are you able to help us about any recommendation that was
5 made after his death for a posthumous award and a ceremony in 1996 where
6 he was praised by Krajisnik as a hero of the Serbian uprising.
7 Did you know anything about that?
8 A. I don't know specifically about that, but I can tell you that the
9 tragedy of my country was that we -- at either side, Bosnian Muslim,
10 Croatian, or Serbian rewarded criminals for the bad deeds that they had
12 Q. Yes, and I see as always you would like to make it clear that it
13 wasn't just the Serbs, it was everybody else as well. That's the
14 position, is it, Dr. Zepinic?
15 A. Yes. And following, what, has been it 17 or 18 years, I still
16 condemn national parties for everything that happened in my country.
17 Regardless of the fact that those were political parties in power,
18 regardless of the fact whether international community recognised them or
19 not, the rule of the national parties in my country directly led to war
20 conflict in my country. I need to be quite specific in my position.
21 Q. Yes, I have no further questions in re-examination. Thank you.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HALL
24 the Tribunal. Your testimony is now at an end, and you are released.
25 And we wish you a safe journey back to your home.
1 Thank you, sir.
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, can I address to the Court please,
4 JUDGE HALL
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank you
6 for giving me opportunity on both sides to say very shortly about what's
7 happened in my former country.
8 [Interpretation] You would do me a great pleasure if this
9 Tribunal as an international body via international institutions, first
10 and foremost, UN and EU would assist in recovery of my country and its
11 people. My former country and its peoples did not in any way deserve the
12 tragedy that, unfortunately, they had suffered. Every 18th resident of
13 my country was killed. 40 per cent of the population was expelled from
14 their hearths. 750.000 persons according to the World Health
15 Organisation will require professional assistance due to post-traumatic
16 stress disorder. Therefore, I kindly ask you, and I believe this
17 Tribunal to be a serious international organisation, to help bring a
18 smile back onto the faces of children in my country.
19 Thank you.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL
23 afternoon in this courtroom. But reluctantly I do ask whether there are
24 any procedural issues which the Chamber should address.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, no. I -- I'm still -- I have to say
1 for my part I'm not clear on what's going to happen in future when we get
2 to matters which are disputed and which are of importance. But we'll
3 just have to wait and see what happens.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 Sorry, we are on track with the videolink witnesses for tomorrow?
6 MS. KORNER: Yes, as far as I know. There is no problem with any
7 of the video witnesses.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 And nothing from the other side?
10 Thank you. Tomorrow afternoon.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.37 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 2nd day of
13 February, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.